From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Mon Dec  1 04:13:45 2008
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Mon, 01 Dec 2008 04:13:45 -0000
Subject: Sirius and Snape parallels again and Dumbledore of course LONG
In-Reply-To: <ggsf7u+i5eb@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ggvo9p+8pfd@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 185052

Pippin:
<SNIP>f he had let Sirius run unnecessary risks for the Order, 
wouldn't
he be taking advantage of Sirius's weaknesses? Is it okay if Sirius
wants to risk his life for thrills, but not if he's willing to risk
his happiness to keep himself available for Harry? <SNIP>


Alla:

I do not believe I said that Dumbledore should have let Sirius run 
**unnecessary** risks for the Order. I suggested several tasks which 
are not very risky, however necessary and I believe Sirius would have 
wanted to do them.

So, no, no risking his life for thrills, I do not believe I argued 
that.

Pippin:
It's not that Dumbledore was refusing to let Harry's loved ones risk
themselves. Molly, Arthur and Lupin are all sent into danger, not to
mention Ron and Hermione. But Dumbledore, Snape, Molly, Lupin and
Harry himself all felt that given the opportunity, Sirius would take
risks that were unnecessary. I think if such a diverse group of people
agree on something, it's probably true. And if it is true, then Sirius
would endanger not only himself, but the mission he was sent to
perform. It would have been totally irresponsible of Dumbledore to use
Sirius in that way. <SNIP>

Alla:

I don't know, it seemed to me that they objected against Sirius 
taking unnecessary risks, but NOT against him doing stuff, period. To 
me it seems a bit different. I am not saying that he did not like 
risks, it is Sirius after all, **of course** he did! However, you 
seem to be saying that he would have refused just a job that 
Dumbledore would have given him, even if it was not very risky and 
that I disagree with and I do not believe Harry agreed with you 
either actually.

I also really liked Catlady's suggestion, it seemed that other people 
were sent in different disguises, why not Sirius I am not quite sure.

Alla:
>
> Oh no not such a deft manipulator, just the one IMO as what Lizzyben
describes, the one who plays his psychic trauma over and over again
at other people.

Pippin:

Why single out Dumbledore when the whole wizarding world is guilty?

Alla:

Interesting point, but please see below.

Pippin:
The magical world has locked itself away, and those who can't or won't
stay in the closet are either driven out of civilized society
altogether or imprisoned perforce. It wasn't Albus who decided that
Arianna had to be kept hidden for her own safety. His parents did
that, because they knew the Ministry wouldn't think she could be
trusted to obey the statutes of secrecy.

Alla:

I mean I hear you about whole WW locking themselves away, however 
while I see general similarity, I do not see where in canon we see 
the specific examples of people who want to part the ways with WW and 
are instead being locked up. I mean Sirius is locked up, but not for 
breaking Statute of secrecy, no?

I mean you could be right, however Dumbledore's situation is so very 
specific as nobody else's no? We are talking here about one person 
replaying his psychic trauma on other people (if you agree with the 
premise) and while again I see the parallel in the WW in general, I 
do not see anybody specific doing that besides DD.

Pippin:
Albus rebelled against that, and wanted to lead the wizards out of
hiding. He was weary of looking after Arianna and of trying to keep
Aberforth's behavior in bounds. But if he'd refused to do it, the WW
would have stepped in. The whole wizarding world is repeating the
trauma it suffered in breaking away from the Muggles -- I think JKR
herself said something to this effect. <SNIP>

Alla:

I am not sure how what you just said is relevant to refuting Lizzyben 
original point. Sure Albus rebelled and wanted to do Wizards rule 
Muggle thing, but I mean the trauma that he suffered was Ariana being 
killed in part because she was hidden, no? So what does Albus 
attempted rebellion has to do with it? How is it relevant if you want 
to argue against the argument that Albus wants to lock up all people 
he wants to keep safe because he could not keep Ariana safe?

And I also think JKR said something about WW suffering because being 
in hiding and it is hard for small community, however I am not sure I 
remember about such specific wording, if you have a link I would 
appreciate it.

> Alla:
>
> Really? So what did he have to do for the Order in OOP?

Pippin:
Sirius did participate in strategy meetings. He could have helped
cleanse the house -- it might have been therapeutic for him. He
certainly enjoyed throwing away his parents' possessions.

Alla:

Well, for some reason I think that doing housework just may be a task 
Sirius is extremely unsuited for, but that's just me. I do not 
remember Sirius participating in strategy meetings, except when Molly 
shut him down when he was trying to tell Harry the truth, I am not 
sure if that counts as task for the order. But I know OOP the worst, 
so if you could give me quote I would appreciate it.

Pippin:
Hmmmm. Dumbledore did give Sirius a mission. We don't know how well he
performed it, but we do know that afterward, everyone, including Molly
who hadn't known Sirius in the old days, felt he couldn't be trusted
not to take unnecessary risks.

Sirius never disputed it, either.

Alla:

I do not believe I remember people saying that after Sirius performed 
the mission ( old crowd seemed to be notified, so I would think he 
performed it ok) he cannot take the risks. I seem to remember people 
just saying that now it became so very dangerous for Sirius. So I am 
not sure where the connection was.

Catlady:
<SNIP>
Back in the day, the list thoroughly discussed DD's motive for wanting
Sirius to be killed before Harry's eyes. <SNIP>


Alla:

I agree with a lot of the things about Sirius that you wrote and I 
snipped, but I want to comment on this. I definitely remember list 
discussing Dumbledore getting rid of Sirius deliberately and see this 
was where I drew the line no matter how much I resented a lot of 
things done by Dumbledore. However, after book 7 I cannot put 
anything past Dumbledore. I mean, I want to believe that he would not 
have done it, but I am not sure.

I am not sure whether you think it was okay for Dumbledore to do so, 
IF we assume for the sake of argument that this is what Dumbledore 
indeed did, I however consider it to be a deed of the monster, 
period. There are things I am sure can be done to win a war, however 
I prefer to think that there are things that should never be done 
even if they will help to win a war.

And I know that there are RL armies where the principle every life 
counts does exist (Israeli army comes to mind from what I read), so I 
do not believe that I am living in my idealistic little world and 
unwilling to consider that sometimes one has to dirty their hands to 
win a war. Absolutely, that happens sometimes, however it is one 
thing if they are consenting to kill a comrade with the dangerous 
information in order for that information not to be put in enemy's 
hands. I get all that. But deliberate planning of killing their 
comrade? I do  not know, I mean, after book 7 I for the most part 
cannot stand Dumbledore, but I would still not say that he is the 
same as Voldemort.

This may just do the trick for me, if he wanted to kill Sirius to 
make sure Harry is in enough pain, I would say that Dumbledore is no 
better than Voldemort. 

But that begs another question for me, leaving the morality of that 
act out, I wonder how does that work? How does Dumbledore know that 
this is what is going to happen at the end of the year and that is 
where Sirius will die?

Or did this theory suggest that Dumbledore was just waiting and when 
he decided that time came he told Sirius here, now you can go and die 
there? I am not being sarcastic at all, I am just wondering how that 
is supposed to work.

Catlady:
<SNIP>
I don't think Molly has a right to have an opinion. I think she
forfeited it by her own idiotic reckless behavior. When seeing Harry
off on the Hogwarts Express, Padfoot "reared on to its hind legs and
placed its front paws on Harry's shoulders", which various large dogs
have done to me when they wanted to slobber on me, but Molly "hiss[ed]
'For heaven's sake, act more like a dog, Sirius!'" She didn't even
call him Padfoot! Even without using a name, since when does telling a
dog to act more like a dog soothe enemy suspicions? <SNIP>


Alla:

Me too.


Montavilla47:
<SNIP>
What Dumbledore is faulting Snape for isn't that Snape is
trying to manipulate the situation. He's finding fault because
Snape is indifferent to James and Harry--because Snape lacks
the greatness of heart to care about a person he hates and
one he doesn't know. <SNIP>

Alla:

Hm, when you phrase it like that, it is indeed hard for me to think 
that Snape should care about them. However, when I phrase it for 
myself, I am saying that Dumbledore (and me) is faulting Snape not 
for just **not caring** for James and Harry. I mean, really why 
should he care about his school nemesis who stole a girl from him and 
his son? But no, I think Dumbledore is faulting Snape for not giving 
a damn about their lives, whom he Snape helped to endanger. And yeah, 
if Snape comes to Dumbledore all remorseful for telling a prophecy, I 
would think he should feel remorse for two other lives he endangered 
as well. I am with Dumbledore here definitely.  JMO of 
course.

Pippin:
> But that meant DD would lose two fighters -- was it wrong for him to
> ask what Snape could offer in return?

Montavilla47:
Really, all I can say to that is that if Dumbledore was thinking
only about the number of his fighters, then he has no business
faulting Snape for his indifference to James and Harry.

Alla:

I have no clue whether Dumbledore was thinking in terms of his 
fighters only or not, I would not be surprised if he did. However, 
even if he was thinking only in terms of losing two fighters, I would 
still say that he has an absolute right to fault Snape for his 
indifference to James and Harry. Because to me there is a ton of 
difference between thinking that "Oh man, if Lily and James die, I am 
not sure I care that two wonderful or not so wonderful human beings 
may die, but I care that I can lose two experienced fighters" AND 
thinking " Oh man, I gave the prophecy to Voldemort and now Lily and 
her husband and baby  may die. I am so sorry that Lily may die, but I 
do not give a flying fig if that bastard James and Harry will"

Dumbledore did not endanger Lily and James that would warrant them to 
go in hiding. He may not see behind loosing his fighters, but I do 
not believe that he should feel a huge remorse about his behavior, if 
that makes sense. I mean, I do not LIKE it one bit, but I cannot 
compare his (if it is his mindset) and Snape's at all. 
JMO,
Alla






From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Mon Dec  1 04:28:31 2008
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Mon, 01 Dec 2008 04:28:31 -0000
Subject: War veterans and JKR's interviews WAS :Re: CHAPDISC: 34, The Forest Again.
In-Reply-To: <ggujf1+est4@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ggvp5f+jjlb@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 185053

> Pippin:
> She *did* write that book. That's what the Marauder generation is 
all
> about. It's part of the reason they had to die, IMO -- to show that
> they had to live with the scars of war to the  end.
<SNIP>
> Nineteen years later, JKR shows us a Harry who is reasonably happy
> with his life, but if we want to know how he got there, we have to
> look at Pettigrew, Snape and Sirius, each of whom remained frozen  
in
> a different stage of recovery: denial, bargaining or anger. Only 
Lupin
> got to move on to acceptance from despair. 


Alla:

Well, see I completely agree with you Pippin here, I think JKR showed 
brilliantly the war traumas in Marauders' generation and I think she 
definitely wrote this book.

However, I have to be honest. I who used to love love love JKR's 
interviews am approaching the stage where I will join the crowd who 
will desperately wish that the woman would just keep her mouth shut.

Again, please do not get me wrong, I do not fault her or anything. It 
is just a cry of despair from the reader to other readers, because I 
love to analyse her work so much and her interviews for me start to 
complicate the matters **so so so much* I totally understand how hard 
it was for her for more than a decade to live with her work and not 
being able to share her thoughts, her intentions with the readers in 
order to protect the plot and not spoil it for us.

I get it, really. However, when she says stuff like that, I cannot 
help but say, oh really?

What Shelly said, I mean, any slightest sign in the epilogue that all 
those war hurts are still with Harry and his friends? Because I 
surely did not see them.

I mean, I will never doubt that Harry and his friends ARE war 
veterans and I mean, different people cope differently, so I am sure 
there are people who adjust well without help and are less touched by 
war than others. However from my limited knowledge of the subject it 
is impossible to escape the war **absolutely unscarred**, so how 
about just saying that I wanted to give Harry a happy ending?

And it is not like she did not mention those nightmares Harry 
suffered after Cedric's death, etc, so he certainly had trauma along 
the way, she just did not want him to be traumatised at the end, 
which is fine, but why say that stuff about war veterans?

It is the same thing as with Dumbledore, her Dumbledore works 
perfectly for me, except when I start to think about that d*mn 
epitome of goodness quote.


Then she goes on to say oh yes, Dumbledore was Makiavellian and Harry 
was nothing but a weapon for him, which is again, to me is totally in 
line with canon and then she goes on to say that we should love him 
as a good man, etc. Um, sorry JKR, from my reading of the parts of 
the Prince, I really do not find the man who wrote it to be very 
admirable. I do not think the man for whom Harry was a weapon 
deserves my love and admiration, so, yeah, I will still most likely 
read your interviews, but I will try to start not to or at least 
limit myself.


Pippin:
> One of the things JKR does with her world is remind us that we'd be
> leaving more than decent dental care behind if we had to live in the
> pseudo-medieval society so beloved of  heroic fantasy sagas. There
> simply is no mental health counseling as we know it in the WW.
> 
> They don't even know that they need it. 
> <SNIP>

Alla:

Very true.






From sweenlit at gmail.com  Mon Dec  1 06:06:35 2008
From: sweenlit at gmail.com (Lynda Cordova)
Date: Sun, 30 Nov 2008 22:06:35 -0800
Subject: [HPforGrownups] War veterans and JKR's interviews WAS :Re: CHAPDISC: 34, The Forest Again.
In-Reply-To: <ggvp5f+jjlb@eGroups.com>
References: <ggujf1+est4@eGroups.com> <ggvp5f+jjlb@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <43e41d1e0811302206m6128fbeh81a25f5adbd16c8e@mail.gmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 185054

I've never been a great fan of reading the interviews of any author. Lots of
reasons, mostly based around a lack of time. I spend my time reading other
things. Having said that, I've read a few of JKR's however, and not been
terribly offput by them. Or terribly impressed.

Lynda


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From montavilla47 at yahoo.com  Mon Dec  1 07:33:14 2008
From: montavilla47 at yahoo.com (montavilla47)
Date: Mon, 01 Dec 2008 07:33:14 -0000
Subject: Sirius and Snape parallels again and Dumbledore of course LONG
In-Reply-To: <ggvo9p+8pfd@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gh03vq+32rs@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 185055

> Montavilla47:
> <SNIP>
> What Dumbledore is faulting Snape for isn't that Snape is
> trying to manipulate the situation. He's finding fault because
> Snape is indifferent to James and Harry--because Snape lacks
> the greatness of heart to care about a person he hates and
> one he doesn't know. <SNIP>
> 
> Alla:
> 
> Hm, when you phrase it like that, it is indeed hard for me to think 
> that Snape should care about them. However, when I phrase it for 
> myself, I am saying that Dumbledore (and me) is faulting Snape not 
> for just **not caring** for James and Harry. I mean, really why 
> should he care about his school nemesis who stole a girl from him and 
> his son? But no, I think Dumbledore is faulting Snape for not giving 
> a damn about their lives, whom he Snape helped to endanger. 

Montavilla47:
You're right, of course.  Snape isn't innocent in this situation 
and has a greater responsibility to care than if Voldemort had 
targeted James and Harry for some other reason. 

Interestingly, Dumbledore also had a hand in this situation.  
After all, he caught Snape listening at the door and allowed
him to take the prophecy to Voldemort.  Of course, that's not
nearly as bad being the one taking it, but he was smart
enough to know that Voldemort was likely to target 
*somebody* after hearing it--even if Dumbledore thought
it was poppycock (which he probably didn't, since he took
the precaution of safeguarding Trelawney.

Even if Dumbledore didn't know that Snape was a Death
Eater during the incident, he was taking a very big chance
allowing *anyone* to walk away with that information.  

I mean, even if Snape were the most innocent, kindly
person in the world--like, say, Bertha Jorkins, he could
easily have dropped a hint in the wrong place and have
ended up like Bertha did--subjected to memory charms
and then fed to a convenient animal.


> Pippin:
> > But that meant DD would lose two fighters -- was it wrong for him to
> > ask what Snape could offer in return?
> 
> Montavilla47:
> Really, all I can say to that is that if Dumbledore was thinking
> only about the number of his fighters, then he has no business
> faulting Snape for his indifference to James and Harry.
> 
> Alla:
> 
> I have no clue whether Dumbledore was thinking in terms of his 
> fighters only or not, I would not be surprised if he did. However, 
> even if he was thinking only in terms of losing two fighters, I would 
> still say that he has an absolute right to fault Snape for his 
> indifference to James and Harry. Because to me there is a ton of 
> difference between thinking that "Oh man, if Lily and James die, I am 
> not sure I care that two wonderful or not so wonderful human beings 
> may die, but I care that I can lose two experienced fighters" AND 
> thinking " Oh man, I gave the prophecy to Voldemort and now Lily and 
> her husband and baby  may die. I am so sorry that Lily may die, but I 
> do not give a flying fig if that bastard James and Harry will"
> 
> Dumbledore did not endanger Lily and James that would warrant them to 
> go in hiding. He may not see behind loosing his fighters, but I do 
> not believe that he should feel a huge remorse about his behavior, if 
> that makes sense. I mean, I do not LIKE it one bit, but I cannot 
> compare his (if it is his mindset) and Snape's at all. 

Montavilla47:
Well, but he did endanger Lily and James by engaging them as members
in his order--as Voldemort endangered his Death Eaters by recruting
them.  It's unavoidable, of course, that when you engage soldiers 
(whether legitimately, secretly, or however), some of them are going
to die and their families are going to grieve.

And you may end up orphaning their children.  But when their children
are being targeted, then you really can't expect them to put that aside 
and continue being soldiers.  Am I off-base here?  I would think that
the moment Dumbledore finds out that Voldemort is trying to kill
Lily and James's child, then they stop being soldiers and start being 
people you'd protect at all costs.

And, while it's complicated because Snape is partially to blame for
the situation, he's also "just the messenger" right now.  He's giving
Dumbledore important information about who are numbers one-
three on  LV's hit list, and he's asking that Dumbledore protect the
one (number three on the list) that he cares about.  But it's not really a 
tit-for-tat thing--until Dumbledore makes it so.

I mean, let's suppose that Sirius has a mad secret passion for 
Lucius Malfoy.  He finds out that the Ministry is planning to arrest 
Lucius and, desperate to prevent that, he goes to Voldemort to 
let him that.  Wouldn't *anyone* assume that Voldemort would 
try to prevent that, even it meant taking Lucius out of action for 
a time?  Who in their right minds would expect even Voldemort
to say, "Hmm.  Well, I guess I could let Lucius know to hide the 
Dark Artifacts, but only if you make it worth my while."

You have to hand it to Dumbledore for sheer gall in the Prince's
tale.  Not only does he demand that Snape deliver "anything"
in exchange for something he has every intention of doing
anyway, he manages to finesse the moment when he lets
down his end of the agreement and to sign Snape up for an 
open-ended extension of the contract in which Snape has
to protect some kid he couldn't care less about.  And then
he lets Snape down *again* by telling him that Harry has 
to be sacrificed!  At which point, he's already upped the payment
to tearing of Snape's soul, and an indefinite period of playing
the villain in order to protect an entire school full of students!








From lizzyben04 at yahoo.com  Mon Dec  1 09:46:44 2008
From: lizzyben04 at yahoo.com (lizzyben04)
Date: Mon, 01 Dec 2008 09:46:44 -0000
Subject: Sirius and Snape parallels again - Sirius' death (LONG)
In-Reply-To: <ggjd5j+cvgh@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gh0bq4+amsk@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 185056

lizzyben:
> > But he never really escaped the Order, bound by DD's past favors 
to
> > him. That was the emotional "hook" that snagged Lupin. And in the 
> end
> > the pattern played out the same: the child was imprisoned by DD &
> > later killed by a dark wizard. 
> 
> Leah: Whatever Dumbledore's conscious reasons, it does make you 
> wonder about Dumbledore's subconcious reaction to the Prank, both 
at 
> the time it occurs, when he apparently fails to punish Sirius, and 
> fails to give Severus any closure, and much later when he learns 
the 
> truth about the animagi and their escapades from Sirius at the end  
> of POA.   How dare Severus and Sirius, either intentionally or out 
> of recklessness, risk exposing this hidden shame to the world?  
<snip>

lizzyben:

Sirius was definitely a thorn in DD's side. Not only does he 
unwittingly expose the one hidden shame (Lupin), he also escapes 
Azkaban to possibly free another from DD's control (Harry), and 
exposes another hidden secret in OOTP (Sirius himself). DD has 
carefully hidden Sirius away out of sight, only to see Sirius escape 
& almost destroy his grand plans many times. Sirius just would not 
stay hidden. It was time to hide Sirius out of sight - permenantly. I 
definitely think Sirius was killed by DD & IMO there's a ton of 
clues, both logical & metaphorical, throughout the text that suggest 
this.

lizzyben:
> > In that same chapter, there's an unintentional similarity between 
> DD &
> > Slughorn. After Harry meets Slughorn, the text says that Harry 
> had "a
> > sudden vivid mental image of a great swollen spider, spinning a 
web
> > around it, twitching a thread here and there to bring its large 
and
> > juicy flies a little closer." Spiders also knit patterns that 
> extend
> > far around them, catching all passersby in their wake.  
> 
> Leah: So perhaps the chapter title 'Spinners End', usually taken to 
> refer to Snape, spinning Bellatrix a yarn and being spun by 
Narcissa 
> into sealing his own fate with the Unbreakable Vow, also refers to 
> the fact that the Vow seals Snape's promise to end the biggest 
> spinner of them all.

lizzyben:

That's a great point & I think you're absolutely right. That chapter 
comes right before "Horace Slughorn", & IMO JKR did intend the 
chapter title to have a triple meaning. One chapter later, Harry has 
his vivid vision of a swollen spider twitching invisible threads. 
Harry's not usually a visionary type of guy, so IMO that image is 
very important. I think it was Harry's subconsious desperately 
warning him that all is not what it seems with Dumbledore. 

I can't emphasize enough how much this chapter creeps me out, in 
retrospect. HBP opens the summer after OOTP, when Harry threw his 
tantrum at DD after Sirius' death. This is the first time Harry has 
seen DD since that time & he's resolved to be DD's Man once again. 
He's pleased to see DD & treats him w/respect, etc. And it seems like 
Harry no longer blames DD for Sirius' death. But still, the truth 
keeps seeping through around the edges. 

Harry watches DD bully the Durselys for mistreating him, pushing them 
around like puppets. But a part of him must've remembered that this 
is the same man who carefully addressed letters to him at "The 
Cupboard Beneath the Stairs". That's odd. And for Harry, there's also 
an association of living in a cupboard & having spiders around him. 
So IMO that's already in the back of Harry's mind. Then DD drags him 
along to Slughorn's w/o telling Harry any reason for this. Harry's 
being treated as a pawn, again. Apparantly part of some greater plan 
of DD's that DD keeps secret from him. On the way, DD has a rather 
odd (in retrospect) long digression about how he might just be a 
Death Eater disguised as Dumbledore. (Or, how he might just 
be a wicked man disguised as the epitome of goodness.) And he also 
goes on a tangent about Inferi, dead bodies bewitched to do a Dark 
Wizard's bidding. (Or, live people converted into dead pawns by a 
wicked wizard.) The text says that Harry can't get the image of 
Inferi out of his head. So that's also in Harry's mind.

It's then that Harry has this vivid vision of a spider spinning a web 
& pulling invisible threads to bring its dead flies closer - a vision 
that actually fits DD much better than Slughorn. Slughorn sends his 
proteges out into the world, after all - to be MOM, or Quidditch 
stars, etc. It's DD who keeps imprisioning & drawing his pawns back 
to the center (Hogwarts) & himself, where they usually meet their 
death. 

A spider doesn't kill its prey directly, instead it catches them in 
their web where they can be imprisoned & controlled & pulled by 
threads. The spider doesn't kill; the web does. In the same 
way, it's DD's web, rather than DD himself, that kills James & Lily, 
& Ariana & Sirius & many others. DD "hooks" Slughorn into the web by 
dangling Harry as bait, & then makes his joke about how he 
enjoys "knitting patterns". Just as with the Inferi, live people are 
turned into bait, pawns & puppets to do the dark wizard's bidding.

At the end of the chapter, DD leads Harry into a cupboard (!) - the 
Weasley's outhouse, which is described as "a little smaller than the 
average cupboard." Inside, Harry notices spiders covering DD & I 
think it's very significant when he notices this. There's no mention 
of spiders until DD brings up Sirius' death, & how tragic it was that 
this ended what could have been a long & happy relationship. Harry 
doesn't react, but only *resolutely* watches a spider climbing DD's 
hat. I think this is a clue - that Sirius' death is a place where the 
web has been twitched & a thread has been pulled. Then, of course, 
when Harry mentions killing & being killed by LV, DD says that his 
hat would "shower him in spiders." Because that's the heart of the 
web, the Plan, that DD has been spinning all along.

OK, so I flipped back to OOTP, to the chapter that describes Sirius' 
death. And IMO the language there is striking & quite damning. 
They're fighting in the MOM when DD suddenly appears. 

The text says: "One of the Death Eaters ran for it, scrabbling like a 
monkey up the stone steps opposite. Dumbledore's spell pulled him 
back as easily and effortlessly as though he had hooked him with an 
invisible line -"

So JKR has established that DD is hooking, immobilizing & pulling 
people backwards with invisible threads. Continuing...

"Only one pair was still battling, apparently unaware of the new 
arrival. Harry saw Sirius duck Bellatrix's jet of red light: he was 
laughing at her.
"Come on, you can do better than that!"; he yelled, his voice echoing 
around the cavernous room.
The second jet of light hit him squarely on the chest. ...

It seemed to take Sirius an age to fall: his body curved in a 
graceful arc as he sank backwards through the ragged veil hanging 
from the arch."

Sirius was easily ducking Bellatrix's shots until DD's arrival. But 
after DD begins imprisioning people w/invisible threads, Sirius is 
suddenly immobilized, apparantly unable to do anything to defend or 
duck the second jet of light. Then, just like the Death Eater, he is 
pulled backwards. The description of Sirius' fall sounds odd for 
someone falling naturally, but exactly like what would happen if 
someone was being slowly *pulled* backward by an invisible line.

And this fits in another way - it fits DD's MO. DD didn't *kill* 
Sirius, not directly. He just imprisioned him in a place where he 
could be killed by a dark wizard. In life, Sirius refused to stay 
hidden & kept escaping DD's prisons. And so now DD imprisions & then 
hides Sirius away, permenently, behind the veil. Sirius had become an 
obstacle to DD's plan, and so DD arranged for his death. IMO Sirius's 
death has DD's sticky fingerprints all over it.

As if to drive home the point, JKR then adds: 

"Dumbledore had most of the remaining Death Eaters grouped in the 
middle of the room, seemingly immobilised by invisible ropes." The 
pattern is repeated three times - first a DE is imprisoned & pulled 
back, then Sirius is immoblized & pulled back, then the remaining DE 
are immobilized & pulled into the center of the room - all with 
invisible threads, all by Dumbledore. Like a spider spinning & 
pulling threads to bring its flies closer, or a dark wizard 
transforming independent people into Inferi puppets that will do his 
bidding.

Harry was a first-hand witness to this. I think a part of Harry knew 
full well that DD was responsible for Sirius' death, which is why he 
raged at DD at the end of OOTP, & why he is so disturbed by DD's 
descriptions of Inferi in HBP. And that's why he has the sudden vivid 
vision of DD as a spider, hooking, immobilizing & pulling his prey 
closer with invisible threads. In the case of Sirius' death, it was a 
physical thread, but DD also used emotional & mental hooks to reel 
people into his web. The vision is really one of a monster, which IMO 
Dumbledore really was beneath the mask. Voldemort may have been more 
evil, but DD was much more *insidious* than Voldemort could ever hope 
to be.



lizzyben 




From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Mon Dec  1 19:28:09 2008
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Mon, 01 Dec 2008 19:28:09 -0000
Subject: Sirius and Snape parallels again - Sirius' death (LONG)
In-Reply-To: <gh0bq4+amsk@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gh1ds9+9d32@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 185057

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "lizzyben04" <lizzyben04 at ...> 
wrote:
>< HUGE SNIP>
>And this fits in another way - it fits DD's MO. DD didn't *kill*
Sirius, not directly. He just imprisioned him in a place where he
could be killed by a dark wizard. In life, Sirius refused to stay
hidden & kept escaping DD's prisons. And so now DD imprisions & then
hides Sirius away, permenently, behind the veil. Sirius had become an
obstacle to DD's plan, and so DD arranged for his death. IMO Sirius's
death has DD's sticky fingerprints all over it. < HUGE SNIP>

Alla:

Okay, I snipped rather arbitrarily because I just have one 
clarification question, so may as well leave this part in. You are not 
saying that Dumbledore planned to kill Sirius in specific time and 
specific place? You are basically saying that he took advantage of the 
opportunity that arose and that he did not predict it right away? 

Because the scary part is that after book 7 I cannot say anymore that 
Dumbledore is a moral man who would not do that and while I still do 
not WANT to believe that he will, as long as the mechanics are 
explained adequately, I will not put it past Dumbledore. Sigh.

Alla.







From shagufta_naazpk2000 at yahoo.com  Mon Dec  1 19:46:32 2008
From: shagufta_naazpk2000 at yahoo.com (shagufta_naazpk2000)
Date: Mon, 01 Dec 2008 19:46:32 -0000
Subject: Naughty quote
Message-ID: <gh1euo+tcb6@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 185058

My apologies if this has been quoted earlier (I did run a search and it 
didn't turn up anything).

I was re-reading DH and this line caught my eye: Chap The Tale of the 
Three Brothers.
"Wands are only as powerful as the wizard swho use them. Some wizards 
just like to boast that theirs are bigger and better than other 
people's"

It's a bit like the line earlier in the book when Ron is giving Harry a 
lesson in impressing girls "...and it's not all wandwork either..."

Hmmm

So any more like those?

cheers
Shagufta




From zanooda2 at yahoo.com  Mon Dec  1 23:57:52 2008
From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2)
Date: Mon, 01 Dec 2008 23:57:52 -0000
Subject: Naughty quote
In-Reply-To: <gh1euo+tcb6@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gh1tm0+cpe9@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 185059

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "shagufta_naazpk2000" 
<shagufta_naazpk2000 at ...> wrote:

> My apologies if this has been quoted earlier (I did run a 
> search and it didn't turn up anything).


zanooda:

Maybe not here, but we had a talk about this on the OT list not very 
long ago :-). I don't remember how it started, but I remember that we 
ended up arguing about Ron's "wandwork" comment - who was being 
naughty here, Ron or JKR :-). Carol and me(or I?) maintained that Ron 
said it innocently, and it was just JKR's little joke, but some 
others felt sure that Ron knew what he was saying :-).


> Shagufta wrote:
 
> So any more like those?


I don't remember any, except for maybe Fred's "I'm only yanking your 
wand" comment :-).


zanooda, who still thinks that this is an OT topic ...




From kersberg at chello.nl  Tue Dec  2 00:16:30 2008
From: kersberg at chello.nl (kamion53)
Date: Tue, 02 Dec 2008 00:16:30 -0000
Subject: CHAPDISC: 34, The Forest Again.
In-Reply-To: <ggujf1+est4@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gh1uou+6q4a@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 185060

<snip>

Kamion to pippin

Interesting vieuw that the "veteran"-part is covered by the 
Maraunders,pippin,
but it is a rather forced approuch I think. The only one who is the 
veteran in this is Lupin, the other are either casualty of war, 
prisoner of war and fugitive - instead of hiding in Paraguay like 
Mengele Wormtail is hiding in a ratskin.
Of Lupin we don't see very much other that his coping as a werewolf 
in the Wizard society and that determinates his behaviour far more 
that deeds and trauma's of the past. 
Sirius is fighting with demons still, but that is with the demons 
gained in AZkaban, 
from after the war caused by his treatement by the establisment, then 
caused by the war itself.

When the Maraunders listen to a model/scedule I am tempt to say, it's 
more that of schoolmates and what has become of them. But even that 
doesn't pull the car. The Maraunders is past and present are nothing 
more then an extention of Harry's father image. In knowing himself it 
is necesairy he knows his father, as was it alone because he is 
constant compaired with James Potter Sr. And they hardly act on their 
own, the actions of Sirius and Lupin are constant in the light of 
completing the knowledge Harry gains about James. 

And not about Lilly, we get a very very fussy image of Lilly through 
Lupin and Sirius, by the time she gets a face it is provided by Snape.
In this JKR is consequent in her structures: nothing is what is seems 
to be at first sight. In the end it is not the courage of James that 
pulls Harry through the fight ( with himself) but the selfsacrifical 
nature of Lilly.

OK, a bit of long and winding piece to say JKR did not write 
the "veteran"-book. And if we had not heard it blubbing from her in 
some intervieuw, we would neither go looking for it in the books.

I doubt someone who reads this books with interest and doesn't dig in 
intervieuws and fanwritings or opinions, but just analyses the work 
with an open mind, would come to the idea JKR used the veteranmodel.




From jkoney65 at yahoo.com  Tue Dec  2 00:21:29 2008
From: jkoney65 at yahoo.com (jkoney65)
Date: Tue, 02 Dec 2008 00:21:29 -0000
Subject: CHAPDISC: 34, The Forest Again
In-Reply-To: <ggek8d+iore@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gh1v29+8d31@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 185061


I thought this was the best chapter she wrote in the series.

> 
> Discussion Questions
> 1.  What did you think as you read Harry's immediate reaction to 
the 
> knowledge that he must die?  Did you find his reaction realistic?  
> Did this scene change your opinion of Harry in any way?

I thought he actually took it quite calmly. It's as if all of his 
trials had matured him to accept what he must do to end it.

I loved the way his mind started racing, the heartbeats etc.


> 
> 2.  How about Dumbledore?  Did it make sense to you that Harry did 
> not seem to blame Dumbledore?  How did you feel about Dumbledore, 
as 
> you read Harry's thoughts?

I thought Harry's outlook was very mature. He realized that 
Dumbledore had a plan, but the final decision was still up to Harry. 
He could have fled under his cloak but he didn't. I thought that 
Dumbledore was smarter than I gave him credit for. He came up with 
the best plan he could and worked it until his death. Even then he 
used it to advance his goal.


> 
> 3.  What did you think of the imagery as Harry walks through the 
> deserted, empty halls and stairways of Hogwarts?

I thought it was a nice job of imagery. The looking for the Weasley's 
was a good image. He's looking for the last of his family...


> 
> 4.  Neville has come up often in this book's chapter discussions.  
> Thinking of the Neville in the early books, even up to the third, 
did 
> you think anything about Neville being out recovering bodies?  
Could 
> you have imagined this Neville from what we saw of him in previous 
> books?


I thought Neville's progression through the books was well done. We 
see him getting braver as time goes on. Harry has had a good effect 
on him. Neville has become one of those solid people you can depend 
on. 


> 
> 5.  In his journey to meet Voldemort, Neville is the only living 
> person to whom Harry speaks.  Why Neville?  Do you think Harry 
could 
> have been thinking that Neville was the other "prophecy boy"?  Do 
you 
> think Neville knew Harry was going to sacrifice himself in spite of 
> Harry's denials?

I think that the Neville scene was to show us the growth Neville had 
during the books. The timid shy boy is the one cleaning up the 
battlefield.

If Neville thought Harry was going to face Voldemort, I have no doubt 
that he would have tried to go with him. Solid!


> 
> 6.  As Harry watches Ginny with the injured girl who wants to go 
> home, he thinks of himself, Voldemort and Snape as the "abandoned 
> boys" who all found their only home at Hogwarts.  How did you react 
> to this thought?  Why did Harry think of those three and link them 
in 
> such a way, a common bond between them all?

I thought the link was tenuous at best. One was evil, one was evil 
and redeemed himself as best he could, and one was good. Other than 
poor childhood homes I didn't really link the three.


> 
> 7.  What did you feel as 17-year-old Harry put the snitch to his 
> mouth and said the words, "I am about to die"?

Tears formed against my will (I'm supposed to be tougher than that)

It was probably the most emotional moment of the series for me.


> 
> 8.  Were you surprised at the identity of any of the people who 
came 
> to Harry through the Resurrection Stone?  

No, who else would he have called?


> 
> 9.  Did you find the interaction between Harry and his loved ones 
> typical, particularly of interactions between himself and Sirius 
and 
> Lupin?  Did you feel Sirius and Lupin acted in character in this 
> scene?  What about James and Lily?  Did they say or do anything 
that 
> surprised you, given the little but important things we knew of 
them 
> previously?

I thought they all acted within the parameters we knew of them. 
Sirius tried to joke to relieve tension, his parents were proud and 
reassuring...


> 
> 10.  When Harry is saying that he didn't want them to die, why was 
he 
> mostly addressing Lupin?

Because Lupin's life had just changed for the better. He had a wife 
who loved him and he just had a son. His life was really just 
starting.


> 
> 11.  Harry's loved ones have promised to stay with him to the end.  
> Why did he drop the Resurrection Stone before entering the clearing 
> and meeting Voldemort?  Was it accidental, just nerves, or was 
there 
> another reason?  Did he not want them there with him when he died?

I thought they had served their purpose of escorting him to the 
meeting. They helped keep him calm. Once this was over, he would join 
them.

I think he may have also dropped it because he didn't want them to 
see him die. He was still very nervous/scared. I think he wanted to 
die well and didn't want them to see in case he didn't. After all, 
all four of them died fighting. He was just going to stand there. Not 
exactly the way a hero is supposed to go out. It reminds of the 
graveyard scene from GoF where Harry decides to stand and fight 
instead of hiding behind the tombstone. Harry wanted to face death, 
not hide from it.


> 
> 12.  Were the final moments of this chapter what you expected?  Did 
> you think there would be more, more action, more description, more 
> dialogue between Harry and Voldemort?  

After all the other problems, I didn't think Voldemort would give us 
the long speech. Especially once he saw that Harry wasn't carring his 
wand. The one that kept defeating him. So kill him quickly.


> 
> 13.  What was your immediate reaction at the end of this chapter?  
> Did you think, even for a moment, that Harry was really dead?

I didn't think he was dead, but I didn't know how he was going to 
come back.


> 
> 14.  What was your overall reaction to this chapter and all its 
> events?

As I said above. I thought this was her best chapter in the series. I 
also thought is was the most emotionally charged.

Harry's long walk to his death was one of the bravest things that 
anyone has ever done. It's much easier to die in battle than in a 
slow walk to death. 

I always refer to the chapter as Dead Man Walking.

> 
> 15.  Please share any other questions or thoughts that come to mind 
> about this chapter.  
> 
> Sherry
> 
Thanks for summary and questions. Great job!
jkoney




From iam.kemper at gmail.com  Tue Dec  2 00:22:33 2008
From: iam.kemper at gmail.com (kempermentor)
Date: Tue, 02 Dec 2008 00:22:33 -0000
Subject: Naughty quote
In-Reply-To: <gh1tm0+cpe9@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gh1v49+o909@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 185062


> shagufta wrote:
> My apologies if this has been quoted earlier (I did run a 
> search and it didn't turn up anything).

> zanooda:
> I don't remember how it started, but I remember that we 
> ended up arguing about Ron's "wandwork" comment - who was being 
> naughty here, Ron or JKR :-). Carol and me(or I?) maintained that Ron 
> said it innocently, and it was just JKR's little joke, but some 
> others felt sure that Ron knew what he was saying :-).
 
> > Shagufta wrote: 
> > So any more like those?

Kemper now:
Ron, from PoA: Hey Lavender, can I see Uranus?

So going back to zanooda's maintaining Ron's remarks as innocent... I
vehemently disagree :D

Kemper




From zanooda2 at yahoo.com  Tue Dec  2 02:15:09 2008
From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2)
Date: Tue, 02 Dec 2008 02:15:09 -0000
Subject: Naughty quote
In-Reply-To: <gh1v49+o909@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gh25nd+sa70@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 185063

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "kempermentor" <iam.kemper at ...>
wrote:

> Ron, from PoA: Hey Lavender, can I see Uranus?
 
> So going back to zanooda's maintaining Ron's remarks as innocent... I
> vehemently disagree :D


zanooda:

LOL! That was only about "wandwork", not about Uranus. Uranus remark
is definitely *not* innocent :-). Very childish though :-). Ron said
it again in OotP, BTW.




From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Tue Dec  2 02:32:32 2008
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Tue, 02 Dec 2008 02:32:32 -0000
Subject: CHAPDISC: 34, The Forest Again.
In-Reply-To: <gh1uou+6q4a@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gh26o0+jfk6@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 185064

> Kamion to pippin
> 
> Interesting vieuw that the "veteran"-part is covered by the 
> Maraunders,pippin,
> but it is a rather forced approuch I think.

Alla:

I do not think so at all.

Kamion:
 The only one who is the 
> veteran in this is Lupin, the other are either casualty of war, 
> prisoner of war and fugitive - instead of hiding in Paraguay like 
> Mengele Wormtail is hiding in a ratskin.

Alla:

Um, maybe we should agree on definitions then. Who are in your 
opinion veterans of war? Why people who fought the war for several 
years do not count? Before Sirius went to Azkaban, he did fight the 
war for at least three years, no? How come he does not count as 
veteran for you?

Before Pettigrew switched we can safely assume that he fought in the 
Order for two years at least, no?

How come he does not count as veteran? I mean, the fact that he is a 
traitor does not mean that he is not a veteran, no?

What about Snape? Pippin was not talking just about Marauders, but 
Marauders generation and Snape fought in that war for several years 
before he start to teach. Why do you dismiss him as a veteran?

I am not sure I understand your approach.

Kamion:
> Of Lupin we don't see very much other that his coping as a werewolf 
> in the Wizard society and that determinates his behaviour far more 
> that deeds and trauma's of the past. 

Alla:

How do you figure that? I mean I agree his werewolf problems shaped 
his character too, but you are really arguing that him remembering 
all too well the times when Order was outnumbered 20:1 does not 
matter for analysing his behavior?

Kamion:
> Sirius is fighting with demons still, but that is with the demons 
> gained in AZkaban, 
> from after the war caused by his treatement by the establisment, 
then 
> caused by the war itself.

Alla:

And again how do you figure that? Sirius was on the front lines of 
the war for three four years before he went to Azkaban.

Kamion:
> When the Maraunders listen to a model/scedule I am tempt to say, 
it's 
> more that of schoolmates and what has become of them. But even that 
> doesn't pull the car. The Maraunders is past and present are 
nothing 
> more then an extention of Harry's father image. <SNIP>

Alla:

So we are just discarding them fighting in the Order for years? 
That's your right to do so of course, but I am definitely not going 
to reduce them to extension of Harry's father image. JMO of course.


Kamion:
> OK, a bit of long and winding piece to say JKR did not write 
> the "veteran"-book. And if we had not heard it blubbing from her in 
> some intervieuw, we would neither go looking for it in the books.

Alla:

That's your opinion. Mine is that had JKR never said it in the 
interview, I would not have gone looking for Harry behaving as a 
scarred veteran at the end of course, but I most definitely always 
associated Marauders generation with battle scarred, very badly hurt 
veterans of war. I do not need to go **look** for it, it is staring 
me in the face.

And Snape to me is definitely among them, young man, who albeit 
fought on the wrong side, however I also can see him being 
traumatised and badly.

Kamion:
> I doubt someone who reads this books with interest and doesn't dig 
in 
> intervieuws and fanwritings or opinions, but just analyses the work 
> with an open mind, would come to the idea JKR used the veteranmodel.

Alla:

I guess that means I analyse her work with closed mind?







From danjerri at madisoncounty.net  Tue Dec  2 16:28:01 2008
From: danjerri at madisoncounty.net (Jerri&Dan Chase)
Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2008 10:28:01 -0600
Subject: CHAPDISC: 34, The Forest Again
In-Reply-To: <1228229303.843.12396.m46@yahoogroups.com>
References: <1228229303.843.12396.m46@yahoogroups.com>
Message-ID: <DF22B5F9D7FF4CC0B1217EBA751887D8@JerriPC>

No: HPFGUIDX 185065

> 15.  Please share any other questions or thoughts that come to mind
> about this chapter.
>
> Sherry


Thanks for the summary and questions.  I don't really feel I have much to 
add to the major discussion, but wanted to describe the one point in this 
chapter that distracted me and pulled me out of the moment, on first 
reading.  And that was Hagrid, alive and tied to a tree.

I had thought him dead back in the 7 Potters chapter, when he fell to earth, 
but he wasn't.

I thought him dead again, when the spiders carried him off.

Here he is a prisoner in Lord V's camp.

WHY!?

I know, that JKR wanted Hagrid alive and present to carry Harry's "dead" 
body out of the forest.  But why didn't the spiders kill him?  And, if they 
didn't, why didn't the death eaters?  He was "Dumbledore's Man through and 
through".  He was a half breed, not full blooded wizard.  I know why JKR 
didn't have him killed, but why did the spiders and death eaters and Lord V?

And, I don't know why JKR would have produced the prisoner Hagrid at this 
point, as we reach the climax of the chapter?  It proved a distraction to 
this reader and to Harry.  (And, she couldn't get me again.  When a death 
eater, with a wave of a wand, "silenced" Hagrid, I didn't think he was dead 
this time!)

And, I didn't want Hagrid to die, but all his near death experiences just 
didn't work for me in the context of this book.

Jerri 




From kersberg at chello.nl  Tue Dec  2 22:51:06 2008
From: kersberg at chello.nl (kamion53)
Date: Tue, 02 Dec 2008 22:51:06 -0000
Subject: CHAPDISC: 34, The Forest Again.
In-Reply-To: <gh26o0+jfk6@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gh4e4q+ubvk@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 185066

--- > 
> Alla:
> 
> I guess that means I analyse her work with closed mind?
>
of course not closed, but you are biased by the whole paraphenalia 
around JKR and HP, the movies, fansites, etc. Don't think many fans are 
unbaised in their analyses of JKR's work. I don't exclude myself from 
it.




From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Wed Dec  3 01:05:01 2008
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Wed, 03 Dec 2008 01:05:01 -0000
Subject: CHAPDISC: 34, The Forest Again.
In-Reply-To: <gh4e4q+ubvk@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gh4lvt+jvbo@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 185067

> > Alla:
> > 
> > I guess that means I analyse her work with closed mind?

Kamion:
> of course not closed, but you are biased by the whole paraphenalia 
> around JKR and HP, the movies, fansites, etc. Don't think many fans 
are 
> unbaised in their analyses of JKR's work. I don't exclude myself from 
> it.
>

Alla:

No.




From foxmoth at qnet.com  Wed Dec  3 15:25:22 2008
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Wed, 03 Dec 2008 15:25:22 -0000
Subject: CHAPDISC: 34, The Forest Again.
In-Reply-To: <gh26o0+jfk6@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gh68d2+s7aj@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 185068

> Alla:
> 
> How do you figure that? I mean I agree his werewolf problems shaped 
> his character too, but you are really arguing that him remembering 
> all too well the times when Order was outnumbered 20:1 does not 
> matter for analysing his behavior?

Pippin:
The war took all of Lupin's friends in a single day. Does anyone want
to argue that this had nothing to do with his subsequent reluctance to
get attached to anyone? Is it any wonder that he feels safer and
happier with the dead?

> 
> Kamion:
> > Sirius is fighting with demons still, but that is with the demons 
> > gained in AZkaban,  from after the war caused by his treatement by
the establisment,  then  caused by the war itself.
> 
> Alla:
> 
> And again how do you figure that? Sirius was on the front lines of 
> the war for three four years before he went to Azkaban.

Pippin:
More than that, Azkaban was not just a prison, it was a place where
the prisoners were made to relive the worst moments of their lives.
How many times did Sirius have to relive discovering that two of his
best friends were dead and another one had betrayed them all? Not to
mention whatever other horrors he witnessed. 


Alla:
I get it, really. However, when she says stuff like that, I cannot
help but say, oh really?

What Shelly said, I mean, any slightest sign in the epilogue that all
those war hurts are still with Harry and his friends? Because I
surely did not see them.

Pippin:
Perhaps you saw what you wanted to see?  How much of Harry's trauma
was visible when we first met him in PS/SS?  We expect a damaged
psyche to show itself in dramatic ways, especially in stories. But 
often it doesn't. 

How much of Sirius's trauma was visible in GoF, or when he took Harry
to King's Cross in OOP? To all appearances he didn't have a care,
frisking around and chasing pigeons, and wagging his tail at everyone.
But that didn't mean he'd  recovered.

Epilogue Harry absent-mindedly touches his scar because he's worried,
just like Snape unconsciously rubbing the dark mark. The scar hasn't
pained him for nineteen years, but  we're shown that Harry's fears are
still with him. Ginny has to reassure him. He has to be reminded that
all is well. 

Good point about Molly, btw. Of course it's usually the pot in the
Potterverse who gets to point out that the  kettle is black. After
all, it takes one to know one. Now that we know Molly is a superb
fighter too, perhaps her bad temper with Sirius is a little more
understandable. It could be she didn't think The Order was making the
best use of her talents either. When she went white to the lips and
agreed that Dumbledore could count on her, she probably didn't suppose
she was volunteering to cook and clean house.

There would be a hot war eventually, and then both she and Sirius
would be needed. It would be foolish to risk them on  missions to
which their talents  were not suited. I suppose Sirius was hoping to
get out and harass some DE's, as he did in the index card story.  But
the DE's in OOP are busy pretending to be law-abiding citizens, and if
the Order harassed them it would be playing right into Fudge's hands.
And if Sirius got caught, he wouldn't get a  sentence in Azkaban like
Sturgis Podmore. He'd have his soul sucked out.

Perhaps JKR, thinking of wizard chess, wondered how the powerful
pieces feel about having to hold their positions and wait for the
endgame, while lesser pieces get to skirmish and probe for the enemy's
weaknesses.

When Mundungus wakes up after the meeting in OOP, ch 5, he says "I
'gree with Sirius..." and raises his hand as though voting. So Sirius
did have a chance to participate in strategy meetings, and everyone
had a vote. 

As far as JKR's interviews, she did not know that people were going to
take her words out of context years after she said them and use them
as ammunition in debates that she does not even know about. An
interviewer wanted to know how JKR planned to keep her good characters
from becoming boring, and she said they weren't boring because
they were flawed. People always ignore that part when they complain
about the "epitome of goodness" interview. If a flawed person cannot
be "a highly representative example" of a good person, then I guess
there are no examples of good people in the world. 

There are not many authors of popular fiction who take the risk of
letting their heroes disappoint us. But in real life it would be
amazing to find a hero who didn't.

Pippin

 




From k12listmomma at comcast.net  Wed Dec  3 16:09:01 2008
From: k12listmomma at comcast.net (k12listmomma)
Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2008 09:09:01 -0700
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: CHAPDISC: 34, The Forest Again.
References: <gh68d2+s7aj@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <42E52838FD7A41F48EF9EDB67EB3084C@homemain>

No: HPFGUIDX 185069

> Alla:
> I get it, really. However, when she says stuff like that, I cannot
> help but say, oh really?
>
> What Shelly said, I mean, any slightest sign in the epilogue that all
> those war hurts are still with Harry and his friends? Because I
> surely did not see them.
>
> Pippin:
> Perhaps you saw what you wanted to see?  How much of Harry's trauma
> was visible when we first met him in PS/SS?  We expect a damaged
> psyche to show itself in dramatic ways, especially in stories. But
> often it doesn't.
>
snip
> Epilogue Harry absent-mindedly touches his scar because he's worried,
> just like Snape unconsciously rubbing the dark mark. The scar hasn't
> pained him for nineteen years, but  we're shown that Harry's fears are
> still with him. Ginny has to reassure him. He has to be reminded that
> all is well.

Shelley:
When I read the section about Harry touching his scar, I didn't take it at 
all to be a sign of stress from the "war". No, he didn't touch it because he 
was worried. No, it's about Rowling telling us that he scar hadn't hurt in 
19 years. That's ALL that I got out of it. There is no mention of "fears 
being with him" for that passage. Instead, all we are supposed to get out of 
it is that scar hadn't told any sign of Voldemort since he died, to tell us 
that indeed, he was gone forever and that everyone had nothing to fear. 
Rowling was telling us Harry could live his life in peace- quite the 
opposite of what you are getting out of it- that Harry had leftover fears 
and struggled as a war vet.




From lizzyben04 at yahoo.com  Wed Dec  3 16:16:22 2008
From: lizzyben04 at yahoo.com (lizzyben04)
Date: Wed, 03 Dec 2008 16:16:22 -0000
Subject: Veterans Suffering, was Re: CHAPDISC: 34, The Forest Again.
In-Reply-To: <D7B9C0ED8E43412B9A612B0072EF88DC@homemain>
Message-ID: <gh6bcm+lagu@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 185070

> > Ceridwen:
> > Ginny, Ron and Hermione, together with Harry our core 
group "Nineteen
> > Years Later," all fought in the war, too.  They didn't face 
Voldy, but
> > they faced other DEs as intent on killing them as Voldy was on 
killing
> > Harry.  It might just as easily be Harry soothing Ginny's nerves, 
or
> > Ron and Hermione reassuring each other.
> >
> > With St. Mungo's level of physical care, there would have been 
very
> > few visible scars - only the ones from Dark Magic would remain.

<snip> 
> Shelley:
> I could see if a twing of a memory occured- Harry seeing a child 
and 
> thinking he looked (or acted) a lot like the young Colin Creevy, or 
another 
> one that was killed, and feeling that momentary guilt or saddness 
of regret. 
> It's what that scene lacks- a momentary rememberance of one lost.


lizzyben:

IIRC, the last line of the epilogue was originally "Only those who 
loved him could see his scar." Which would at least be a *hint* of 
green, suggesting that war wounds do not heal & there is an 
underlying sadness or rememberance even in times of joy. And that 
many veterans do have internal scars that can only be seen by those 
they love. OK, it still wouldn't be a veteran story, but at least it 
would even just suggest that everything isn't happy, happy, perfect 
families! after a major civil war. As it is, the "all is well" is 
just awful, sort of erasing any suggestion of lingering pain or scars 
at all. "All is Well!" It's like Rowling couldn't bear even a hint of 
shadow in her happy epilogue - so it ended up just shallow & slightly 
creepy.

As to why she's bringing up this "veteran-theme" now, IMO it's 
probably a response to fan criticism. Sometimes I could swear that 
Rowling is a member of HPFGU. *looks around furtively*. People 
criticized the Slytherins leaving before the final battle & suddenly 
Rowling says they came back. When DH was released, some fans compared 
the ending unfavorably to LOTR in terms of its treatment of veterans 
of war - about how Tolkein actually was a veteran & included a long 
chapter about what the heros did after the big battle; to recover, to 
save their own hometown, & to become leaders in the community. And 
Frodo, of course, never healed completely. Whereas in DH, it's just 
like the big battle ended & everything went back to (dsyfunctional) 
norm. And Harry's happy! And everyone had lots of kids! Now Rowling 
says there was a veteran-theme all along? OK then. The way she's 
bringing this up only now definitely makes me think that it's a 
response to criticism she's read on various fan sites. In other 
words - it's spin. 


lizzyben




From eggplant107 at hotmail.com  Wed Dec  3 17:02:04 2008
From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107)
Date: Wed, 03 Dec 2008 17:02:04 -0000
Subject: Veterans Suffering. was Re: CHAPDISC: 34, The Forest Again.
In-Reply-To: <gh6bcm+lagu@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gh6e2c+19dv@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 185071

"lizzyben04" <lizzyben04 at ...> 

> As it is, the "all is well" is just awful

Yes I agree. And JKR could have at least given Harry a mysterious limp
or something in the Epilogue.

> the last line of the epilogue was originally
> "Only those who loved him could see his scar."

I had not heard that before, is it really true? If so it would have
made a FAR better last line.

 Eggplant





From samajdar.parantap at gmail.com  Wed Dec  3 15:48:30 2008
From: samajdar.parantap at gmail.com (samajdar_parantap)
Date: Wed, 03 Dec 2008 15:48:30 -0000
Subject: A minor doubt ...
Message-ID: <gh69oe+k0j5@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 185072

Hi All ,

I was reading DH and had this nagging irritation .. probably not worth
a discussion .. but posting anyway .

>From the portrayal of bloody baron , does not it seem very unlikely
that he will be a Slytherin ghost ? He (bloody baron) is The Only One
He (Pieves :D)Ever Feared .. Attacks gray lady without thinking about
consequence and above all - commits suicide for his guilt. All this
seems very much gryphindorish.

Looks like gray lady is a better candidate for slith house ghost .. too
much ambition with too limited ability ( very much like Draco )

What does people think on this ?


Thanks and regards ,
Parantap




From sweenlit at gmail.com  Wed Dec  3 20:02:27 2008
From: sweenlit at gmail.com (Lynda Cordova)
Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2008 12:02:27 -0800
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Veterans Suffering. was Re: CHAPDISC: 34, The Forest Again.
In-Reply-To: <gh6e2c+19dv@eGroups.com>
References: <gh6bcm+lagu@eGroups.com> <gh6e2c+19dv@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <43e41d1e0812031202l5122ed64w30013c1bd6ef19c1@mail.gmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 185073

As it is, the "all is well" is just awful

Yes I agree. And JKR could have at least given Harry a mysterious limp
or something in the Epilogue.

---------------------------------------

I don't agree. She wrote a story of a boy's growing up, fighting a horrible
evil and surviving that evil. And living beyond it. I don't need to read
that he had a limp or a scar or something of that sort to realize that in
reality, anyone who has survived the things Harry did is going to have
invisible if not visible scars. That the fictional Harry was written in a
way that indicates that he was able to recover as completely as possible
from what he went through is not a detraction from the epilogue but a plus.
He lived, got a job, got married, had kids of his own. He did not succumb to
self-pity, or wallow in despair. Its a win all around and a testament to
people who do survive and do so well.

Lynda


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From foxmoth at qnet.com  Wed Dec  3 20:37:09 2008
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Wed, 03 Dec 2008 20:37:09 -0000
Subject: Veterans Suffering, was Re: CHAPDISC: 34, The Forest Again.
In-Reply-To: <gh6bcm+lagu@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gh6qll+3r5k@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 185074

 
> lizzyben:
> 
> IIRC, the last line of the epilogue was originally "Only those who 
> loved him could see his scar." Which would at least be a *hint* of 
> green, suggesting that war wounds do not heal & there is an 
> underlying sadness or rememberance even in times of joy. And that 
> many veterans do have internal scars that can only be seen by those 
> they love. OK, it still wouldn't be a veteran story, but at least it 
> would even just suggest that everything isn't happy, happy, perfect 
> families! after a major civil war. As it is, the "all is well" is 
> just awful, sort of erasing any suggestion of lingering pain or
scars  at all. "All is Well!" It's like Rowling couldn't bear even a
hint of  shadow in her happy epilogue - so it ended up just shallow &
slightly creepy.

Pippin:
If you thought there weren't any shadows in the epilogue, then all I
can say is you didn't read the same one I did.

 The last glimpse of Albus as he leaves is a thin face, ablaze with
excitement. Now who does that sound like? He's going to have a
struggle, like his middle namesake, because Hogwarts is no wonderland.
It's like everywhere else -- if you stand up to people you don't know
how to beat, you'll get bullied. And Albus does.   There's a reason
his dad told him not to get into any duels until he knew how.

But  Al isn't likely to encounter a dark wizard bursting out through
the back of someone's head, or a white wizard whose grand plan to win
the war involves getting him killed. Harry knows that, intellectually,
but his feelings don't.

"Harry kept smiling and waving, even though it was like a little
bereavement, watching his son glide away from him...." 

The first time I read that, I thought "bereavement" was a little over
the top for someone watching his middle child go off to school. And so
it is. It's an overreaction, and Harry is as usual hiding it.  But
Ginny can tell that he's upset. 

"He'll be all right" is not something you'd murmur to a dad who was
happily smiling and waving unless you knew that he was putting on a
brave face. 

The original last line, besides telling rather than showing, would
have driven the literalist nit-pickers up a tree.

 Why, they would want to know, is Harry's scar now only visible to
those who love him, when everybody could see it before? 

As written, it's better, IMO. It doesn't try to grab onto the
heartstrings and yank, it just shows us. Those of us who love Harry
can see the scar, as it were. We know better than to think that "All
was well" means that all the WW's problems have been solved.  "All's
well" is the watchman's cry -- it just means there's no emergency at
the moment, and children are safe in their beds.

Pippin






From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk  Wed Dec  3 21:53:50 2008
From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister)
Date: Wed, 03 Dec 2008 21:53:50 -0000
Subject: CHAPDISC: 34, The Forest Again.
In-Reply-To: <42E52838FD7A41F48EF9EDB67EB3084C@homemain>
Message-ID: <gh6v5e+4m0s@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 185075

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "k12listmomma" <k12listmomma at ...> wrote:

> Shelley:
> Rowling was telling us Harry could live his life in peace- quite the 
> opposite of what you are getting out of it- that Harry had leftover fears 
> and struggled as a war vet.

Geoff:
Now that's a bit I missed in the books - that Harry spent some of his 
time dealing with the effect of the war on cats and dogs and other 
four-legged friends.
:-))




From zanooda2 at yahoo.com  Thu Dec  4 05:41:09 2008
From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2)
Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2008 05:41:09 -0000
Subject: CHAPDISC: 34, The Forest Again - Hagrid
In-Reply-To: <DF22B5F9D7FF4CC0B1217EBA751887D8@JerriPC>
Message-ID: <gh7qhl+em9t@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 185076

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Jerri&Dan Chase" <danjerri at ...>
wrote:

> I know, that JKR wanted Hagrid alive and present to carry 
> Harry's "dead" body out of the forest.  But why didn't the 
> spiders kill him?  And, if they didn't, why didn't the death 
> eaters?  


zanooda:

Maybe LV didn't want Hagrid dead. Hagrid is awesome in battle, and if
under Imperius curse, for example, he could be quite an asset :-). Or
maybe LV kept Hagrid alive to use him as a hostage, as someone very
close to Harry.




From foxmoth at qnet.com  Thu Dec  4 14:53:43 2008
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2008 14:53:43 -0000
Subject: Sirius and Snape parallels again - Sirius' death (LONG)
In-Reply-To: <gh1ds9+9d32@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gh8qtn+96pe@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 185077

 
> Alla:

> Because the scary part is that after book 7 I cannot say anymore
that Dumbledore is a moral man who would not do that and while I still do 
> not WANT to believe that he will, as long as the mechanics are 
> explained adequately, I will not put it past Dumbledore. Sigh.
> 

Pippin:
Are you sure it wasn't Lupin? :) Seriously, Dumbledore was a schemer
and sometimes a coward, Lupin was a coward and sometimes a schemer,
Draco Malfoy was usually both. Those aren't what we  consider moral
behaviors.  But JKR makes it clear that they aren't enough to make
anyone a murderer. It takes something else: either a complete
disregard  for the value of human life and the integrity of one's own
soul, or some emotion so overpowering that it blinds the murderer to
what he is doing. 

Pippin







From foxmoth at qnet.com  Thu Dec  4 15:51:46 2008
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2008 15:51:46 -0000
Subject: Dumbledore and the Prophecy was Re: Sirius and Snape parallels again
In-Reply-To: <ggur6o+dooi@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gh8uai+kp2k@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 185078

Montavilla:
> But Dumbledore had heard the whole prophecy and knew that 
> the possible vanquishers was more limited.   Maybe he really
> did think the prophecy was nonsense, but his choice to hire
> Trelawney (for a course he considered absurd) argues against
> that idea.  If the prophecy was nonsense, then there was no
> need to safeguard the prophetess.
> 

Pippin:
There's a need to safeguard her as a human being in danger, whether
she's a prophetess or not. Of course that leads to the question of why
Dumbledore didn't stop Snape or at least wipe his memories. But I
think I can explain. 

I don't think Dumbledore believes in prophecies, in the sense that he
thinks that all  prophecies are meant to come true. But he may believe
that all prophecies  happen for a purpose, whether they come true or
not. IOW, he doesn't believe in prophecies, but he does believe in
Providence.

That would explain a lot about him. If you believe everything happens
for a purpose, there's a tendency to think that if you can see a use
for something, it's meant to be used. Put there a-purpose, as Sam
Gamgee would say.

The prophecy may not be meant to come true, but it didn't happen while
Trelawney was holding a private seance with her sherry bottles or in
the middle of Diagon Alley and a crowd of onlookers. It came when it
could be overheard by Dumbledore. That meant Dumbledore was meant to
hear it. And so, of course, was Snape.

Snape at that time was not even suspected of being a Death Eater and
(forehead slap) Dumbledore couldn't know at that time that he'd
overheard only part of the prophecy. Dumbledore would not think anyone
but Trelawney would be   in immediate danger if Voldemort heard of it.
 Voldemort would wait to see what infant could be marked, in the sense
of taking notice, as his equal. 

Eavesdropping is not a crime. There was no good reason to hold Snape,
or wipe his memories, and therefore Dumbledore could not do so.

The believer in Providence thinks that as long as he acts morally, he
has nothing to fear, even if doing the right thing empowers others to
do wrong -- so it was right for Dumbledore to let Snape go, even
though that meant that Voldemort would  hear about the prophecy. Just
so, it was right for Harry to spare Pettigrew even though it enabled
Pettigrew to escape. Dumbledore had to give Riddle a chance to escape
his past even though he misused it.

 It would seem providential that orphaned Harry's lawful guardians
would be the Dursleys, who had the most power to protect him, and
providential that because they were relatives no one would seriously
question their fitness to raise the child. 

And if the Resurrection Stone for which you have been longing all your
life is suddenly and unexpectedly within your grasp, it would be hard
to resist the feeling that it was *meant* for you to try it. And so it
was, but not, unfortunately by Dumbledore's better instincts.

Does that make sense?

Pippin 
 




From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Thu Dec  4 17:39:14 2008
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2008 17:39:14 -0000
Subject: Sirius and Snape parallels again - Sirius' death (LONG)
In-Reply-To: <gh1ds9+9d32@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gh94k2+vdlu@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 185079

lizzyben wrote:
> >< HUGE SNIP>
> >And this fits in another way - it fits DD's MO. DD didn't *kill*
Sirius, not directly. He just imprisioned him in a place where he
could be killed by a dark wizard. In life, Sirius refused to stay
hidden & kept escaping DD's prisons. And so now DD imprisions & then
hides Sirius away, permenently, behind the veil. Sirius had become an
obstacle to DD's plan, and so DD arranged for his death. IMO Sirius's
death has DD's sticky fingerprints all over it. < HUGE SNIP>
> 
> Alla:
> 
> Okay, I snipped rather arbitrarily because I just have one 
clarification question, so may as well leave this part in. You are not
saying that Dumbledore planned to kill Sirius in specific time and 
specific place? You are basically saying that he took advantage of the
opportunity that arose and that he did not predict it right away?  
> Because the scary part is that after book 7 I cannot say anymore
that Dumbledore is a moral man who would not do that and while I still
do not WANT to believe that he will, as long as the mechanics are 
explained adequately, I will not put it past Dumbledore. Sigh.

Carol responds:

Although Dumbledore is far from my favorite character, especially
after "the Prince's Tale," I feel compelled to defend him here. Yes,
he knew that LV was trying to trick Harry into going to the MoM, but
he had no way of knowing that Voldemort would use a faked vision of
Sirius Black being tortured to lure him there, that Harry would try
but fail (thanks to Kreacher) to determine the validity of that
vision, that Black would ignore Snape's instructions to stay home and
wait for Dumbledore, or that Black would fight his cousin Bellatrix on
the dais of the Veil and fall through it.

Dumbledore is *not* omniscient. He could not possibly have foreseen,
much less planned, these events. And there is no evidence whatever
that he asked or expected Black to sacrifice himself. All he expected
him to do (rightly, IMO) is keep himself out of danger.

I suppose he could have suggested activities for him (unsigned letters
to the editor of the Daily Prophet, etc.), but Black isn't really the
letter-writing type. He said himself that his big disguise was useless
since Lucius Malfoy had seen him and recognized him on the platform,
and the Invisibility Cloaks were needed elsewhere (after Sturgis
Posmore's capture, they were down to one cloak), and Black was known
to be reckless.

He was not "imprisoned in a place where he could be killed by a Dark
wizard," as lizzyben says. He was restricted to his home where he
could *not* be killed or captured by a Dark wizard. His decision to
escape his "prison" and recklessly fight Bellatrix on the dais of the
Death Veil, with his back to the thing, got him killed. Even if he
didn't know what it was, he knew that he was in the Department of
Mysteries and should have realized that the Veil was best avoided.

Carol, who is also disappointed in Dumbledore but thinks that we
shouldn't get carried away with uncanonical assumptions about his motives




From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Thu Dec  4 18:01:20 2008
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2008 18:01:20 -0000
Subject: Sirius and Snape parallels again - Sirius' death (LONG)
In-Reply-To: <gh94k2+vdlu@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gh95tg+7nvi@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 185080

Carol:
< HUGE SNIP>
> He was not "imprisoned in a place where he could be killed by a Dark
> wizard," as lizzyben says. He was restricted to his home where he
> could *not* be killed or captured by a Dark wizard. <SNIP>

Alla:

Just a small clarification, although I cannot speak for Lizzyben of 
course. I believe that particular phrase of her was in regard of 
Dumbledore possibly immobilizing Sirius during the battle, NOT in 
regard to him being at GP. Although I totally think that he was in 
metaphorical prison at GP, I certainly do not believe that he could 
be killed there.

And well, this interpretation in regard to the battle seems quite 
canon based to me.

I still do not want to believe it and I doubt that it was JKR's 
intention and I do not like to read against author's intent, however 
as I said my basic objection against it is now in my mind completely 
gone. I do not think Dumbledore values ANY life more than his goals, 
therefore as long as I can see canon basis for it, I will accept the 
interpretation. I think Lizzyben explained the battle part well.

JMO,

Alla




From foxmoth at qnet.com  Thu Dec  4 18:33:17 2008
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2008 18:33:17 -0000
Subject: Sirius and Snape parallels again - Sirius' death (LONG)
In-Reply-To: <gh95tg+7nvi@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gh97pd+elf9@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 185081

 
> Alla:
 I do not think Dumbledore values ANY life more than his goals, 
> therefore as long as I can see canon basis for it, I will accept the 
> interpretation. I think Lizzyben explained the battle part well.

Pippin:

He told Harry that he was not permitted to kill with the Elder Wand
and that he took it to save others from it (DH 35). That *was* one of
his goals. Since he was able to keep and use the Elder Wand for a
whole year after Sirius's death, I think we're shown that he hadn't
used it to kill.

Pippin




From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Thu Dec  4 18:33:45 2008
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2008 18:33:45 -0000
Subject: CHAPDISC: 34, The Forest Again - Hagrid
In-Reply-To: <gh7qhl+em9t@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gh97q9+8dig@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 185082

"Jerri&Dan Chase" wrote:
> 
> > I know, that JKR wanted Hagrid alive and present to carry Harry's
"dead" body out of the forest.  But why didn't the spiders kill him? 
And, if they didn't, why didn't the death eaters?  
> 
> 
> zanooda:
> 
> Maybe LV didn't want Hagrid dead. Hagrid is awesome in battle, and
if under Imperius curse, for example, he could be quite an asset :-).
Or maybe LV kept Hagrid alive to use him as a hostage, as someone very
close to Harry.
>
Carol responds:

Or maybe Hagrid was the spiders' reward if they fought on Voldemort's
side. I think he'd deal with them exactly as he did with the werewolves.

Carol, who interpreted it that way on her first reading and still
thinks it makes sense




From terrianking at aol.com  Wed Dec  3 21:28:56 2008
From: terrianking at aol.com (terrianking at aol.com)
Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2008 16:28:56 EST
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Veterans Suffering, was Re: CHAPDISC: 34, The Forest Again.
Message-ID: <c34.48e9f68a.36685418@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 185083

Pippin:
<SNIP>
The last glimpse of  Albus as he leaves is a thin face, ablaze 
with excitement. Now who does that sound like? He's going to 
have a struggle, like his middle namesake, because  Hogwarts 
is no wonderland.
<SNIP>
"Harry kept smiling and  waving, even though it was like a 
little bereavement, watching his son glide  away from him...." 

The first time I read that, I thought "bereavement"  was a 
little over the top for someone watching his middle child 
go off to school
<SNIP>
The original last line,  besides telling rather than showing, 
would have driven the literalist  nit-pickers up a tree.

Why, they would want to know, is Harry's scar now  only visible 
to those who love him, when everybody could see it before?

As written, it's better, IMO.

Robert: 
Interesting comments I can agree with. What did you think of the 
description of Draco Malfoy? A man with all the spirit gone out 
of him, a receding hairline  - a man looking old before his time, 
I thought when I read it. The thing I liked  about him was he was 
such a good bad guy, a good nemesis, but to see him so  dispirited 
and unable to respond to Harry as a his old self. . . very sad.



From aceworker at yahoo.com  Thu Dec  4 21:58:45 2008
From: aceworker at yahoo.com (Sandy)
Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2008 21:58:45 -0000
Subject: CHAPDISC: 34, The Forest Again - Hagrid
In-Reply-To: <gh7qhl+em9t@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gh9jqm+9jrk@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 185084

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "zanooda2" <zanooda2 at ...> 
wrote:
>
> --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Jerri&Dan Chase" <danjerri@>
> wrote:
> 
> > I know, that JKR wanted Hagrid alive and present to carry 
> > Harry's "dead" body out of the forest.  But why didn't the 
> > spiders kill him?  And, if they didn't, why didn't the death 
> > eaters?  
> 
> 
> zanooda wrote
> 
> Maybe LV didn't want Hagrid dead. Hagrid is awesome in battle, and 
if
> under Imperius curse, for example, he could be quite an asset :-). 
Or
> maybe LV kept Hagrid alive to use him as a hostage, as someone very
> close to Harry.
>
------------
DA Jones

Giants according to canon are very hard to kill or harm via magic. 
Would one AK have been enought to do it? If it hadn't been, 
Voldemort would have risked embarassing himself. Besides, who says 
it wasn't in his plans to do so? 

Bad guys, not just in fiction - but often in real life, love to 
humiliate their victims first. Look at what the Nazi's did, they 
routinely humiliated the Jews before gassing them. Terrorists often 
do similar things. Even bullys on the playground will torture with 
taunts, before torturing with fists. 

The power hungry feed off the wimpers of the powerless, and there 
are few wimpers if you just kill. Especially with the AK. It's 
painless.  

Also, maybe he wanted Hagrid alive, as a hostage, but not to control 
not just Harry, but also Hagrid's brother? You can even imagine he 
did so, to have leverage against Madam Maxine, just in case she got 
word and tried to come to the aid of Hogwarts. 

BTW way, where was Madame Maxine? Didn't you expect to see her and a 
few students from B- Academy in the final battle. Oh, well I guess 
JKR couldn't fit everything.  

In addition, Hagrid is still a Hogwarts teacher (or was until 
recently) even under Snape and Voldemort is respectful of Hogwarts. 
Also, it almost seems as if Hagrid is an old 'hogwarts friend' and 
to kill him, would be to kill Hogwarts and Hogwarts is as precious 
to Tom as it is to Harry. In fact, his memories of it, are his 
only 'precious' thing.  

Also, Voldemort to me seems to be actually trying to keep the 
casualties at Hogwarts down. For its clear from the students' 
reactions, and the fact that a year after taking over the ministry 
that there is still organized resistence, that killing everyone 
would be a phyrrhic victory. He isn't even able to openly rule, but 
must hide behind DE ministry stooges. 

He seems to be vaguely aware that if he kills Harry and many other's 
besides, then he risks turning the dead into Martyrs.

DA Jones




From lizzyben04 at yahoo.com  Fri Dec  5 03:25:08 2008
From: lizzyben04 at yahoo.com (lizzyben04)
Date: Fri, 05 Dec 2008 03:25:08 -0000
Subject: Sirius and Snape parallels again - Sirius' death (LONG)
In-Reply-To: <gh1ds9+9d32@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gha6uk+8e3d@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 185085



> Alla:
<snip> You are not 
> saying that Dumbledore planned to kill Sirius in specific time and 
> specific place? You are basically saying that he took advantage of 
the 
> opportunity that arose and that he did not predict it right away? 
> 
> Because the scary part is that after book 7 I cannot say anymore 
that 
> Dumbledore is a moral man who would not do that and while I still 
do 
> not WANT to believe that he will, as long as the mechanics are 
> explained adequately, I will not put it past Dumbledore. Sigh.
> 
> Alla.


lizzyben: 

I just don't know. After the revelations of DH, it seems like there 
should be some kind of forensic audit of DD's past activities, just 
like they do when criminal activity is discovered at some big firm. 
What was DD responsible for? 

As far as Sirius, it's pretty clear (IMO) that DD killed him off, but 
was it spur of the moment or long-premeditated? It depends if you 
prefer light tinfoil or full-hat tinfoil. For some reason I still 
want to give DD the benefit of the doubt, that maybe he saw an 
opportunity to dispose of a problem, but... that doesn't seem to 
quite fit. It's not elaborate enough of a plan. If there's one thing 
we know about DD, it's that he likes over-elaborate plans.

*full tin-foil on*
Ahile back, I think people discussed the meaning of the chessboard in 
PS - and that the invisible hand moving the chess  pieces might be 
DD. If so, who's on the other side? You said that maybe there's no 
one on the other side. 

And I think that's right. There's one invisible hand moving *both* 
sides of the chess game, controlling both the black & white pieces. 
Mixing metaphors, it's as if, above the chessboard, there's a large 
spider's web w/a spider in the center. All the chess pieces are 
connected to the web w/invisible strings & the spider twitches 
strings of the web to move *both* sides closer to the center & create 
confrontations. To the naked eye on the ground, it'd look like the 
pieces are being moved by two antagonistic sides, w/o perceiving that 
one entity moves them both. I think that's ultimately what is 
happening. And it reflects DD's view of the world, in that people 
truly are no more than pawns to him. If he can sacrifice one (or ten) 
to gain some small advantage, he will. He values human life very, 
very cheaply. Why does he play the game? IMO because he gets a power 
kick & it satisfies his enormous ego. He claims the mantle of the 
Leader of Light, while being able to control & manipulate everyone 
around him. Even the MOM can't do *that*. 

After PS, there's not much I'd put past DD - & in that book he 
basically manipulated *both* Harry & LV to engineer a confrontation 
between them. He brought LV to the center by bring him back to 
Hogwarts (Tossing Quirrel into the dumpster...) and then baiting LV 
w/the Stone, and Harry by teaching him about the Mirror & obstacles. 
Then he disappeared while the damaged child went into the hidden room 
to face a dark wizard. Same thing in COS - DD knew full well that 
Harry would be facing down Riddle. He engineered the confrontation in 
DH, probably HBP & GOF too. So given that, it stands to reason that 
he engineered the OOTP confrontation as well. He's 
definitely baiting LV into seizing the prophecy. He sends Snape to do 
Occlumency lessons that only seem to heighten the connection. DD says 
that the connection only ends when LV attempts to posess Harry when 
Harry is "full of love". Sirius is a loved one.  When Sirius is 
killed at the MOM, DD doesn't actually kill/capture LV, but only 
forces him to possess Harry. LV flees, connection ends. DD seems 
rather clinical & unsurprised by any of this. IIRC, there's other 
posts that have explained better how DD could've done this. But yeah. 
He could've had Sirius killed/arrested much earlier, so I do get the 
sensation that DD *waiting* for something, & that was keeping the 
Sirius pawn "in reserve" to be brought out for the big confrontation.



Carol:

And there is no evidence whatever
that he asked or expected Black to sacrifice himself. All he expected
him to do (rightly, IMO) is keep himself out of danger.

I suppose he could have suggested activities for him (unsigned letters
to the editor of the Daily Prophet, etc.), but Black isn't really the
letter-writing type. He said himself that his big disguise was useless
since Lucius Malfoy had seen him and recognized him on the platform,
and the Invisibility Cloaks were needed elsewhere (after Sturgis
Posmore's capture, they were down to one cloak), and Black was known
to be reckless.

He was not "imprisoned in a place where he could be killed by a Dark
wizard," as lizzyben says. He was restricted to his home where he
could *not* be killed or captured by a Dark wizard. 


lizzyben:

I was referring the MOM fight, in which Sirius was (IMO) immobilized 
to the spot for Bellatrix to dispose of. Post

-DH, I don't know how anyone can truly believe that DD was looking 
out for Sirius' best interests. Sirius was one of, if not THE, 
biggest obstacle to The Plan. As we know, The Plan 
involved Harry marching placidly to death at the hands of LV. Just 
*imagine* how Sirius would've reacted if he'd found out DD's 
Plan! "Hell, no, you manipulative old bastard! Pack your things, 
Harry, we're going to Barbados!" 

Sirius was independent, mistrusted DD, & truly loved & wanted what 
was best for Harry as a person. If Harry had been able to consult 
Sirius, he might never have done the death march at all. Thus, Sirius 
is a Problem for DD. That's not "uncanonical"; that's the canon in 
regards to DD's Plan, Sirius' status as godfather & Sirius' likely 
reaction to such a Plan. 

Sirius was Harry's legal guardian & best positioned to take away DD's 
control of Harry. After Godric's Hollow, DD took Harry away from 
Sirius while Sirius was still in shock. DD never lifted a finger to 
help Sirius in Azkaban for 12+ years, even though he never had a 
trial (I wonder if DD pulled some strings there as well...) After 
Sirius escaped, IMO DD was not happy, & could think of nothing else 
to do but to imprision Sirius again. Until his unfortunate death. And 
isn't it funny how those charges got cleared immediately after his 
death? Why wouldn't DD want to clear the charges before? Easy - he 
did not want Sirius to be free; he wanted Sirius out of the way, one 
way or another. I'm not sure if any single person suffered as much as 
Sirius because of DD's machinations. And I don't even like the guy, 
but come on. You don't have to like someone to recognize when they 
are being mistreated.


Pippin:

But JKR makes it clear that they aren't enough to make
anyone a murderer. It takes something else: either a complete
disregard for the value of human life and the integrity of one's own
soul, or some emotion so overpowering that it blinds the murderer to
what he is doing.


lizzyben:

I would argue that DD meets at least two of those criteria. Canon 
shows us an enormous disregard for human life (Seven Potters plan, 
letting Draco roam free, letting Quirrell/LV roam free, letting 
Basiliks roam free, etc. etc.) DD's emotion does blind him to what he 
is doing, in that he seems unable to recognize how much of his 
hurtful actions are due to his own emotional damage. And I wouldn't 
really count on JKR's moral compass, which continues to confuse & 
confound me. 

And I could actually like DD as a character. But what disturbs *me* 
is that JKR never comes clean about the extent of DD's machinations. 
She now says that he's a Machievelli, and that "he's been pulling a 
lot of strings." *wink, wink, nudge, nudge*. But she never tells 
readers the full truth. I'd be OK if DD came totally clean in DH, 
confessed all & then was forgiven by Harry. But JKR seems to want 
readers to forgive & love him w/o even knowing all that he's done. 
It's sort of like DD's secret w/JKR. And even still, many readers 
will call DD the epitome of goodness, or "benevolent" - while 
referring to a man possibly responsible for the deaths of many 
innocent people. She's set up a wicked man as the epitome of 
goodness; claimed the books are about "choices" while the "Good" 
leader takes away the choices of everyone around him. Claimed it's 
about Good vs. Evil while the leader of the "Good" side is revealed 
to be quite wicked & often seems to be manipulating the "Evil" side 
as well.  When DD does those little inside jokes about "knitting 
patterns," it's not just him that gets the joke; JKR does too. It's 
then that I start feeling that this whole series is some sort of 
inside joke. 



Pippin:

He told Harry that he was not permitted to kill with the Elder Wand
and that he took it to save others from it (DH 35). That *was* one of
his goals. Since he was able to keep and use the Elder Wand for a
whole year after Sirius's death, I think we're shown that he hadn't
used it to kill.


lizzyben:

That's what makes it the perfect crime! :) He *didn't* kill Sirius, 
Bellatrix did. Everyone thinks so; even Bellatrix thinks so. A Priori 
Incantatum examination of the Elder Wand would show only a harmless 
immobilization spell, among the many DD cast that night to catch 
various Death Eaters. The spell was invisible, wordless, & caused 
Sirius' death w/o a trace of evidence, w/o a single (live) witness. 
Of course, Sirius could testify to being strangely immobilized before 
his death, but he is unfortunately dead & unable to tell anyone. DD's 
plans for Good go arwy, but his cover-up plans tend to go quite well. 
And that's why I said that Sirius fits the pattern - from Ariana to 
Moody - there is an air of unwitting *collaboration* between the Dark 
Wizard & DD. The Death Eaters think they killed Mad-Eye themselves, 
not knowing DD provided the leak to make it happen. Bella thinks she 
killed Sirius herself, not knowing that DD provided the hook to make 
it happen. LV thinks he killed Harry himself, not knowing that DD had 
planned it all along. Etc. DD keeps creating prisons to keep 
people "safe", & then inviting a Dark Wizard in. DD sets it up, lets 
a dark wizard do the dirty deed, & ends up with clean hands - 
although not a clean consience. 


At King's Cross, DD is left wondering if he was any better than 
Voldemort. That's way, way, more than just not telling Harry the 
truth. Harry gives him the ringing endorsement that 
DD "only killed people when you had to!" To which DD agrees "True, 
true." So DD agrees that he has killed people "when he had to." But 
DD never actually killed Grindewald, or Voldemort, or any Death 
Eaters that we see. He claims not to know if he killed Ariana. Yet he 
remains wracked w/guilt over the people that he has killed. So the 
question remains - who exactly has DD killed? Hmmm? IMO it's a long 
line stretching from Ariana up through Harry himself. DD spread death 
& destruction on both sides as he moved the chess pieces, but most 
often on his own.

It's sort of funny to me how in OOTP, DD carfully reins in the Death 
Eaters, while seeming to be willing to toss the lives of his own 
followers to the wind. In a way you could actually say that DD's 
Plans were more successful in getting Order people killed than the 
Death Eaters (Seven Potters, Godric's Hollow, Philosopher's Stone, 
OOTP, etc.) It's almost like there's a Death Eater headmaster, Snape-
like, posing as a leader of the Order. And he moves the pawns, not 
for the eventual victory of Light, but for his own power & self-
aggrandizement. Going to full tinfoil mode, in DH it's striking how 
suddenly boring, incompetent & useless LV is now that DD, the brains 
of the operation, is gone. The spider has disappeared, leaving only 
the web in place for the final confrontation.




lizzyben, wondering why people don't add cute taglines anymore?








From leahstill at hotmail.com  Fri Dec  5 13:58:55 2008
From: leahstill at hotmail.com (littleleahstill)
Date: Fri, 05 Dec 2008 13:58:55 -0000
Subject: Sirius and Snape parallels again - Sirius' death (LONG)
In-Reply-To: <gha6uk+8e3d@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ghbc2v+6qrf@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 185086

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "lizzyben04" <lizzyben04 at ...> 
wrote:
> 
> lizzyben:

After 
> Sirius escaped, IMO DD was not happy, & could think of nothing 
else 
> to do but to imprision Sirius again. 

Leah: Sirius wouldn't have escaped without the Time Turner which 
Dumbledore gave to Harry and Hermione.  However, DD knew that Harry 
believed Sirius innocent and DD needed Harry.  I think DD didn't 
*set out* to imprison Sirius or anyone else.  I think we're back to 
what is the immediate subconscious reponse to needing to keep 
something secret.  And as Carol has pointed out, it works short 
term - Sirius is safe at Grimmauld Place, Snape stays teaching and 
doesn't kill himself etc. It's just those old patterns resurface...

It's interesting from this PoV to look at Dumbledore's words to 
Draco on the Astronomy Tower: '"...no harm has been done, you have 
hurt nobody, though you are very lucky [read 'I am fortunate to have 
Severus']that your unintentional victims survived...I can help you, 
Draco"'.  Yes, Dumbledore's happy to overlook attempted murder,and 
long-term grievous bodily harm inflicted on Katie Bell to get Draco 
on side. I'm just wondering whether Dumbledore used similar words to 
Sirius after the Prank, with an offer of Order membership.

 
  DD keeps creating prisons to keep 
> people "safe", & then inviting a Dark Wizard in. DD sets it up, 
lets 
> a dark wizard do the dirty deed, & ends up with clean hands - 
> although not a clean consience. 

Leah: And he's still doing it on the Tower. "Come over to the right 
side, Draco, and we can hide you more completely than you can 
possibly imagine".  Be afraid, Draco, be very afraid.  But they're 
interrupted by the Death Eaters and then by Snape delivering the 
coup de grace.  Draco has a hard year, but ultimately he survives, 
and the fact that he and his family are not hidden away enables 
Harry to disarm Draco at the Manor and Narcissa to lie to Voldemort 
in the forest.  Thanks to Snape's silence in the Shack, Draco is not 
killed by a dark wizard, in fact one could say that on the Tower, 
Snape saves Draco not only from Voldemort but from Dumbledore, and 
thereby helps to save Harry too.


Leah  






> 
> 
> At King's Cross, DD is left wondering if he was any better than 
> Voldemort. That's way, way, more than just not telling Harry the 
> truth. Harry gives him the ringing endorsement that 
> DD "only killed people when you had to!" To which DD agrees "True, 
> true." So DD agrees that he has killed people "when he had to." 
But 
> DD never actually killed Grindewald, or Voldemort, or any Death 
> Eaters that we see. He claims not to know if he killed Ariana. Yet 
he 
> remains wracked w/guilt over the people that he has killed. So the 
> question remains - who exactly has DD killed? Hmmm? IMO it's a 
long 
> line stretching from Ariana up through Harry himself. DD spread 
death 
> & destruction on both sides as he moved the chess pieces, but most 
> often on his own.
> 
> It's sort of funny to me how in OOTP, DD carfully reins in the 
Death 
> Eaters, while seeming to be willing to toss the lives of his own 
> followers to the wind. In a way you could actually say that DD's 
> Plans were more successful in getting Order people killed than the 
> Death Eaters (Seven Potters, Godric's Hollow, Philosopher's Stone, 
> OOTP, etc.) It's almost like there's a Death Eater headmaster, 
Snape-
> like, posing as a leader of the Order. And he moves the pawns, not 
> for the eventual victory of Light, but for his own power & self-
> aggrandizement. Going to full tinfoil mode, in DH it's striking 
how 
> suddenly boring, incompetent & useless LV is now that DD, the 
brains 
> of the operation, is gone. The spider has disappeared, leaving 
only 
> the web in place for the final confrontation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> lizzyben, wondering why people don't add cute taglines anymore?
>





From montavilla47 at yahoo.com  Fri Dec  5 17:00:49 2008
From: montavilla47 at yahoo.com (montavilla47)
Date: Fri, 05 Dec 2008 17:00:49 -0000
Subject: Sirius and Snape parallels again - Sirius' death (LONG)
In-Reply-To: <gha6uk+8e3d@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ghbmo1+vphp@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 185087

> lizzyben: 
> After PS, there's not much I'd put past DD - & in that book he 
> basically manipulated *both* Harry & LV to engineer a confrontation 
> between them. He brought LV to the center by bring him back to 
> Hogwarts (Tossing Quirrel into the dumpster...) and then baiting LV 
> w/the Stone, and Harry by teaching him about the Mirror & obstacles. 
> Then he disappeared while the damaged child went into the hidden room 
> to face a dark wizard. 

Montavilla47:
Gotta say, Lizzyben, for the enjoyment factor, this theory is right
up there with ESE Lupin and ESE McGonagall!

>lizzyben:
> Same thing in COS - DD knew full well that 
> Harry would be facing down Riddle. 

Montavilla47:
If he did, the likeliest way for him to know it would be for him
to have either coaxed the story out of Dobby, or gotten it from
Snape, or both.  

Perhaps Dobby came to warn Dumbledore about Lucius having
a Dark Artifact that might threaten Harry Potter.  From the 
description, Dumbledore realizes what it is, and, instead of,
as Dobby hopes, confronting Lucius, sends Snape to his agent
to subtly encourage Lucius to use it this year.  (Perhaps 
dropping hints about the sad number of Mudbloods and how one
of them has the temerity to outdo Draco in classes!)

Thus, when Snape hears a child being killed, his gripping of
the chair is indicative of his guilt--and the fear that this "child"
might be his sworn protectee, Harry.
 
> lizzyben:
> Sirius was Harry's legal guardian & best positioned to take away DD's 
> control of Harry. After Godric's Hollow, DD took Harry away from 
> Sirius while Sirius was still in shock. DD never lifted a finger to 
> help Sirius in Azkaban for 12+ years, even though he never had a 
> trial (I wonder if DD pulled some strings there as well...) After 
> Sirius escaped, IMO DD was not happy, & could think of nothing else 
> to do but to imprision Sirius again...

Montavilla47:
Well, first he got Sirius to go far, far away.  On the pretense that the 
Minister of Magic (who regularly consulted Dumbledore) would never
allow an investigation into Sirius's charges.

>lizzyben:
> ...Until his unfortunate death. And 
> isn't it funny how those charges got cleared immediately after his 
> death? Why wouldn't DD want to clear the charges before? Easy - he 
> did not want Sirius to be free; he wanted Sirius out of the way, one 
> way or another. I'm not sure if any single person suffered as much as 
> Sirius because of DD's machinations. And I don't even like the guy, 
> but come on. You don't have to like someone to recognize when they 
> are being mistreated.

Montavilla47:
And if it is DD's machinations, that explains why Peter was allowed
to live with Snape without the Order arranging for his arrest.  It's not
like Snape wasn't going to tell DD about Lily's real killer being his
roommate.  I'm sure that if DD really had wanted those charges 
cleared up, they could have come up with a plan in which Peter 
was arrested and yet Snape had deniability.  

There isn't any reason given for Peter's presence in Snape's home
(from DD's side).  We'd all sort of assumed that Dumbledore 
allowed him to stay there, unarrested, because it kept Snape 
entirely free from suspicion and because that life debt thingy
might come into play.  Well, if it did, it was the wimpiest life
debt ever.  Or else, it came into play when Peter used Harry's 
blood and accidentally gave him that "Get Out of Death Free"
card.  

But it was Sirius who paid the price for that decision.

>lizzyben:
> At King's Cross, DD is left wondering if he was any better than 
> Voldemort. That's way, way, more than just not telling Harry the 
> truth. Harry gives him the ringing endorsement that 
> DD "only killed people when you had to!" To which DD agrees "True, 
> true." So DD agrees that he has killed people "when he had to." But 
> DD never actually killed Grindewald, or Voldemort, or any Death 
> Eaters that we see. He claims not to know if he killed Ariana. Yet he 
> remains wracked w/guilt over the people that he has killed. So the 
> question remains - who exactly has DD killed? 

Montavilla47:
I'll give you one:  Emmeline Vance.  Snape claims to have given
Voldemort information that led to her capture and death.  We know
he wouldn't have given that information without express orders.


Montavilla47
Who replies too early in the day to think up cute taglines.




From foxmoth at qnet.com  Fri Dec  5 17:00:57 2008
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Fri, 05 Dec 2008 17:00:57 -0000
Subject: Sirius and Snape parallels again - Sirius' death (LONG)
In-Reply-To: <gha6uk+8e3d@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ghbmo9+8481@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 185088

Lizzyben:
> -DH, I don't know how anyone can truly believe that DD was looking 
> out for Sirius' best interests. Sirius was one of, if not THE, 
> biggest obstacle to The Plan. As we know, The Plan 
> involved Harry marching placidly to death at the hands of LV. Just 
> *imagine* how Sirius would've reacted if he'd found out DD's 
> Plan! "Hell, no, you manipulative old bastard! Pack your things, 
> Harry, we're going to Barbados!" 

Pippin:
Nope. We don't have to imagine. We know how Sirius reacted when one of
his friends *wouldn't* march placidly off to death at the hands of LV.

"You don't understand!" whined Pettigrew. "He would have killed me,
Sirius."
"THEN YOU SHOULD HAVE DIED!" roared Black. "DIED RATHER THAN BETRAY
YOUR FRIENDS, AS WE WOULD HAVE DONE FOR YOU!" --PoA ch 19

You see, Sirius doesn't think  it's asking too much to expect a man to
 die for his friends. It's more like...a privilege. D'Artagnan would
understand -- life is good, but death by disease or in the feebleness
of age is not so desirable that it's worth deserting your friends for.
Indeed, Sirius truly loves and wants what's best for Harry, but fact
is, he didn't invite Harry to come share his tropical hideout when he
heard that Harry's scar was hurting again. Instead he rushed back to
share his peril.
 
> lizzyben:
> And I wouldn't  really count on JKR's moral compass, which continues
to confuse & confound me. 
> 
> And I could actually like DD as a character. But what disturbs *me* 
> is that JKR never comes clean about the extent of DD's machinations. 
> She now says that he's a Machievelli, and that "he's been pulling a 
> lot of strings." *wink, wink, nudge, nudge*. But she never tells 
> readers the full truth. 

Pippin:
I think JKR sees individuals as a lot less malleable than you do, and
therefore she sees Dumbledore's machinations, whatever they were, as
more foolish than dangerous. 

The *crowd* is malleable, so Dumbledore gets brownie points from JKR
for not becoming Minister of Magic, avoiding the temptation to use his
powers of persuasion on people en masse. But individual characters are
generally too stubborn even for him. They change slowly, and mostly
from within.  
 

Lizzyben:
I'd be OK if DD came totally clean in DH,  confessed all & then was
forgiven by Harry.

Pippin:
He confessed to Harry what he'd done to Harry, which is all that's
Harry's business. And part of that confession was that he should have
trusted Harry  -- in other words, his manipulations  tried to make
Harry choose what he would have chosen anyway. If Harry hadn't been
the sort to make those choices, it would have been in vain.

Lizzyben:
 But JKR seems to want 
> readers to forgive & love him w/o even knowing all that he's done. 
> It's sort of like DD's secret w/JKR. And even still, many readers 
> will call DD the epitome of goodness, or "benevolent" - while 
> referring to a man possibly responsible for the deaths of many 
> innocent people. 

Pippin:
 Of course you're right, if he killed for pleasure or
self-aggrandizement, he'd be no better than Voldemort. The point is, 
he didn't chose to.

> lizzyben:
> 
> That's what makes it the perfect crime! :) He *didn't* kill Sirius, 
> Bellatrix did. Everyone thinks so; even Bellatrix thinks so. A Priori 
> Incantatum examination of the Elder Wand would show only a harmless 
> immobilization spell, among the many DD cast that night to catch 
> various Death Eaters. The spell was invisible, wordless, & caused 
> Sirius' death w/o a trace of evidence, w/o a single (live) witness. 
> Of course, Sirius could testify to being strangely immobilized
before  his death, but he is unfortunately dead & unable to tell anyone.

Pippin:
Now I'm confused. Dumbledore wasn't looking towards the dais when
Sirius was struck, he turned afterward, as Sirius was falling, either
stunned or dead. Either way, there was no need for a spell to send
Sirius through the veil. Unless, of course, it was *Bellatrix* who
tried to stop Sirius from falling. She does like to play with her food.

Pippin




From leahstill at hotmail.com  Fri Dec  5 18:12:33 2008
From: leahstill at hotmail.com (littleleahstill)
Date: Fri, 05 Dec 2008 18:12:33 -0000
Subject: Sirius and Snape parallels again - Sirius' death (LONG)
In-Reply-To: <ghbmo9+8481@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ghbquh+cqmf@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 185089

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" <foxmoth at ...> 
wrote:
!" 
> 
> Pippin:
> Nope. We don't have to imagine. We know how Sirius reacted when 
one of
> his friends *wouldn't* march placidly off to death at the hands of 
LV.
> 
> "You don't understand!" whined Pettigrew. "He would have killed me,
> Sirius."
> "THEN YOU SHOULD HAVE DIED!" roared Black. "DIED RATHER THAN BETRAY
> YOUR FRIENDS, AS WE WOULD HAVE DONE FOR YOU!" --PoA ch 19
> 
> You see, Sirius doesn't think  it's asking too much to expect a 
man to
>  die for his friends. It's more like...a privilege. D'Artagnan 
would
> understand -- life is good, but death by disease or in the 
feebleness
> of age is not so desirable that it's worth deserting your friends 
for.
> Indeed, Sirius truly loves and wants what's best for Harry, but 
fact
> is, he didn't invite Harry to come share his tropical hideout when 
he
> heard that Harry's scar was hurting again. Instead he rushed back 
to
> share his peril.

Leah: Slightly different circumstances here, I think. I'm sure if 
Snape had been one of Pettigrew's friends he would have said much 
the same; both he and Sirius do die for their friends or their 
friends' sons.  But when Snape hears that 'the boy must die', his 
immediate reaction is that Dumbledore has been raising Harry 'like a 
pig for slaughter'.  I don't think that's all down to Dumbledore's 
betrayal of Snape, I think there's some genuine moral repugnance 
there. What Dumbledore is doing with Harry is morally repugant, even 
though it may be the only thing to do.  And Sirius is more attached 
to Harry personally (or the James in Harry) than Snape is. I don't 
actually see Sirius taking Harry off to Barbados, but I could see an 
extremely difficult, noisy, unpleasant reaction for Dumbledore to 
deal with, and I can see why that is not in his interests.

Leah 




From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Fri Dec  5 19:59:39 2008
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Fri, 05 Dec 2008 19:59:39 -0000
Subject: Sirius and Snape parallels again - Sirius' death (LONG)
In-Reply-To: <ghc0qb+pcd1@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ghc17b+gk96@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 185091

Lizzyben:
<SNIP>
Why does he play the game? IMO because he gets a power
kick & it satisfies his enormous ego. He claims the mantle of the
Leader of Light, while being able to control & manipulate everyone
around him. Even the MOM can't do *that*. <SNIP>

Alla:

Heh, I have a feeling that on this one I will be defending
Dumbledore, but again I am asking for clarification. Are you in
essence saying that Voldemort did not do anything that Dumbledore
would not want him to and all those killings and atrocities done by
DE and Voldemort is what Dumbledore wants to happen? I am not quite
sure if this is in jest or not (I know you said full foil tin on, but
I do not know what that word means), but if it is not in jest,
here
I cannot agree.

I despise Dumbledore's manipulations, I believe that he almost
crossed the line for me in book 7 from flawed man trying to do the
right thing, to the character I despise. To me there are some things
which good guys won't do without being called not good guys
anymore.
However, I do not think that Voldemort is a pawn in Dumbledore's
hands or anything, I am sure Dumbledore genuinely wanted to do the
right thing for the **greater good**. It is just as bolshevics in
1917 as I told someone offlist he did not seem to care who will get
hurt in the process. Because you know, millions of people suffered a
whole lot before 1917 and really, revolutions do not appear out of
nowhere, usually very real sufferings happen to trigger them. But
then it is up to the people who appear to lead the change to minimize
the sufferings, to step up and heal the population, etc. I just do
not think Dumbledore was the right one to do so, but I do not doubt
that Voldemort is the evil one, even if Dumbledore to me is near that
line which would make him a monster.
Killing Sirius ( any one of his soldiers, really, not just because I
like Sirius).


Pippin:

He told Harry that he was not permitted to kill with the Elder Wand
and that he took it to save others from it (DH 35). That *was* one of
his goals. Since he was able to keep and use the Elder Wand for a
whole year after Sirius's death, I think we're shown that he hadn't
used it to kill.


lizzyben:

That's what makes it the perfect crime! :) He *didn't* kill Sirius,
Bellatrix did. Everyone thinks so; even Bellatrix thinks so. A Priori
Incantatum examination of the Elder Wand would show only a harmless
immobilization spell, among the many DD cast that night to catch
various Death Eaters. The spell was invisible, wordless, & caused
Sirius' death w/o a trace of evidence, w/o a single (live) witness.
Of course, Sirius could testify to being strangely immobilized before
his death, but he is unfortunately dead & unable to tell anyone. DD's
plans for Good go arwy, but his cover-up plans tend to go quite well.


Alla:

Okay now I am confused. I told Pippin that I really like her point, I
do not believe Dumbledore would have been allowed to kill and keep
Elder wand, however are you saying that it only works literally? So
if Dumbledore used wandless spell he would have still been allowed to
keep it?

Leah:
<SNIP>
And Sirius is more attached
to Harry personally (or the James in Harry) than Snape is. I don't
actually see Sirius taking Harry off to Barbados, but I could see an
extremely difficult, noisy, unpleasant reaction for Dumbledore to
deal with, and I can see why that is not in his interests.

Alla:

Oh yes totally agreed.

JMO,

Alla






From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Fri Dec  5 20:21:05 2008
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Fri, 05 Dec 2008 20:21:05 -0000
Subject: Individual characters too stubborn for Dumbledore to manipulate or not? WAS: Si
In-Reply-To: <ghbmo9+8481@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ghc2fh+jkhs@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 185092

Pippin:
<SNIP>
I think JKR sees individuals as a lot less malleable than you do, and
therefore she sees Dumbledore's machinations, whatever they were, as
more foolish than dangerous.

The *crowd* is malleable, so Dumbledore gets brownie points from JKR
for not becoming Minister of Magic, avoiding the temptation to use his
powers of persuasion on people en masse. But individual characters are
generally too stubborn even for him. They change slowly, and mostly
from within.<SNIP>

Alla:

Now that just may be an answer to my confusion as to why indeed JKR 
does not see DD's machinations  as dangerous, cruel, monstrous, etc 
and just foolish. And you know, honestly this is a pretty good answer 
for me, if I would have seen that in the book. Meaning if I would 
have seen **one** character who would have been too stubborn for 
Dumbledore to manipulate. If I would have only seen Dumbledore, who 
tries in vain to manipulate people but people would still do what 
they think is right. The thing is I do not see that. I see 
characters, well pretty much all of them to do as Dumbledore wants 
them to, except maybe Voldemort. And of course Voldemort is evil, so 
he obviously would not want to.

Let's count them. I would begin from, oh say Minerva who really does 
not think that Harry should go to Dursleys, because according  to her 
they are the worst sort of muggles. But does she really argue after 
one response from Dumbledore? Oh no, of course not, he persuades her 
quite easily. I was also always wondering how such strong woman just 
stays away from all major order business. I guess I should not have 
wondering.

How about Dursleys, who really really did not want to take Harry in? 
Right, they did.

Let's not forget Snape who gets recruited into Dumbledore's service 
night when he learns that woman he loved is dead.

Let's not forget Harry, please who really wanted to go chase 
Horcruxes at the end of book 6 and instead spends G-d knows how much 
time chasing Hallows instead.

Oh, what about Lupin, who is upset at his spying mission during 
Christmas time in HBP? And  of course let's not forget Snape who 
really, really, really did not want to kill Dumbledore and ended up, 
well you know, killing him.

Oh there were James and Lily who refused to let Dumbledore be their 
secret keeper and ended up dead.

Nope, I do not think that JKR sees characters as too stubborn for 
Dumbledore, it seems to me that she is saying that Dumbledore's way 
is the best way to go, almost always.

And while I am at it, let's not forget Sirius, who fought Hagrid over 
giving Harry back to him, but of course lost the fight.

I do not know Pippin, could you give me some examples of the 
characters who are too stubborn for Dumbledore? It seems to me that 
bastard manhandled everybody very well and did not care how much pain 
he will cause in the process.


JMO,

Alla





From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Fri Dec  5 21:01:26 2008
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Fri, 05 Dec 2008 21:01:26 -0000
Subject: Individual characters too stubborn for Dumbledore to manipulate or not? WAS:
In-Reply-To: <ghc2fh+jkhs@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ghc4r6+ag1v@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 185093

Alla wrote:
> <snip>

> Oh there were James and Lily who refused to let Dumbledore be their 
> secret keeper and ended up dead.
> 
> Nope, I do not think that JKR sees characters as too stubborn for 
> Dumbledore, it seems to me that she is saying that Dumbledore's way 
> is the best way to go, almost always. <snip>

Carol responds:
 But aren't James and Lily exactly what you're looking for, people who
refused to do what Dumbledore wanted? For that matter, I'm pretty sure
that Dumbledore didn't want Peter Pettigrew to do what he did, either.
Nor, of course, did Voldemort, who knew perfectly well what Dumbledore
believed and wanted and acted in contradiction to Dumbledore's ideas
on love and the greater good.

Granted, a lot of people who did what Dumbledore wanted them to do
ended up dead (HRH being the great exceptions), but so did the people
who stubbornly refused to go along with his plans (or, like, Snape,
occasionally acted against orders by, say, attempting to hit a DE with
Sectumsempra). 

We can't blame Dumbledore for the deaths of most of the characters on
his team. Almost always, the person who dies is in some way
responsible for his own death or has made some choice that contributes
to it. And always, someone other than Dumbledore does the actual
killing. (I almost said "pulls the trigger.")

I see no evidence whatever for Lizzyben's theory that Dumbledore
killed Sirius Black, any more than I see evidence for Pippin's old
theory that Lupin did it. Harry, who witnessed it, and Bellatrix, who
was fighting Sirius, both believe that she did it, and we never get
any other story.

Absolutely, Dumbledore is seriously flawed. IMO, he's an egotistical
hypocrite. He is undoubtedly a manipulator and secretive to a fault.
But I think it's simplistic to blame everything bad that happens to
the characters he deals with on him. The Order members chose to be in
the Order. They knew that they were risking their lives. They could
have chosen not to serve, to drop out, or (except for Peter), they
didn't. Most of them paid with their lives, but only because they
chose to do so. Snape chose not to tell Voldemort that Draco was the
true master of the Elder Wand; Lupin and Tonks chose to fight in the
Battle of Hogwarts; Sirius Black chose to go to the MoM and fight
Bellatrix on the dais of the Veil.

Carol, who will probably find herself defending McGonagall or Sirius
Black (characters she dislikes as much as she dislikes Dumbledore) next!





From foxmoth at qnet.com  Fri Dec  5 21:06:00 2008
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Fri, 05 Dec 2008 21:06:00 -0000
Subject: Sirius and Snape parallels again - Sirius' death (LONG)
In-Reply-To: <ghbquh+cqmf@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ghc53o+rmhs@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 185094

> 
> Leah: Slightly different circumstances here, I think. I'm sure if 
> Snape had been one of Pettigrew's friends he would have said much 
> the same; both he and Sirius do die for their friends or their 
> friends' sons.  But when Snape hears that 'the boy must die', his 
> immediate reaction is that Dumbledore has been raising Harry 'like a
 pig for slaughter'.  

Pippin:
I think we're meant to realize eventually that Snape was being a bit
unfair with his metaphor. Harry is not a pig raised for the profit of
the farmer. 

 There's nothing in it for Dumbledore at this point. He isn't  going
to be around when his plan is fulfilled, so he can't even count on 
the pleasure of seeing it work out. 

By the time Snape delivers his message, Harry will no longer be a boy,
either. It is morally uncomfortable that Harry couldn't be told, but
that is simply the reality that all parents have to face: children
have to be prepared  during childhood not knowing what they are being
trained to bear, because there are  burdens no child could endure the
thought of without damage.   

Harry doesn't feel that he was betrayed into dying for something that
isn't worth dying for or that he was trained to die for others without
his knowledge. He knew he was choosing that when he chose to be a
Gryffindor. But  Dumbledore had given him what he thought was false
hope that it wouldn't be necessary.
 
"Sir," said Harry tentatively,"does what you're going to tell me have
anything to do with the prophecy? Will it help me...survive?"
"It has a very great deal to do with the prophecy," said Dumbledore,
as casually as if Harry had asked him about next day's weather," and I
certainly hope that it will help you to survive." -- HBP ch 10

As he journeys into the forest, Harry believes that Dumbledore never
intended to help him survive. But the gleam of triumph tells us that
even though he could not see how it was possible, Dumbledore always
cherished a hope that somehow, he would. 

Pippin





From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Fri Dec  5 21:30:57 2008
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Fri, 05 Dec 2008 21:30:57 -0000
Subject: Individual characters too stubborn for Dumbledore to manipulate or not? WAS:
In-Reply-To: <ghc4r6+ag1v@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ghc6ih+4rud@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 185095

Carol responds:
But aren't James and Lily exactly what you're looking for, people who
refused to do what Dumbledore wanted?

Alla:

Yes and no. I was looking for the characters who refused to do what 
Dumbledore wanted AND in whose fate we would have seen that they 
chose the better way, the right way. And that would have showed me 
what Pippin was arguing ? that Dumbledore's manipulations are seen as 
more foolish than dangerous, because it would have shown that no 
matter what Dumbledore tries to do, people are not pawns and would do 
what's right. I would think that JKR is saying that had Potters 
chosen DD they could have been alive. Moreover, it seems to me that 
JKR is excusing Dumbledore  here to such a degree that I find well, 
laughable. Dumbledore took away for his selfish self interest what 
seemed to me as James and/ or Lily last hope for survival ? his 
invisibility cloak. At least Dumbledore has a decency to feel bad 
about that and what do we hear from Harry? He tries to convince 
Dumbledore that no, oh no that would not have mattered. Um, maybe 
not, Harry, of course it is not a guarantee, but do you want to bet 
on it?


Carol:
 For that matter, I'm pretty sure
that Dumbledore didn't want Peter Pettigrew to do what he did, either.
Nor, of course, did Voldemort, who knew perfectly well what Dumbledore
believed and wanted and acted in contradiction to Dumbledore's ideas
on love and the greater good. <SNIP>

Alla:

Well, sure, but Voldemort is a given and I mention him, Pettigrew, 
well, I was not going to mention him, seems pretty much of the same 
variety to me.

Carol:
<SNIP>
Absolutely, Dumbledore is seriously flawed. IMO, he's an egotistical
hypocrite. He is undoubtedly a manipulator and secretive to a fault.
But I think it's simplistic to blame everything bad that happens to
the characters he deals with on him. The Order members chose to be in
the Order. They knew that they were risking their lives. <SNIP>

Alla:

I have no beef with the argument that Order members chose to risk 
their lives, of course they did. I am arguing that they did not sign 
up for **increased** risk of their lives because of their commander. 
Whatever hurts, deaths may come from Voldemort ? sure, but not 
whatever I think was Dumbledore contributing to their sufferings.


JMO,

Alla





From jkoney65 at yahoo.com  Sat Dec  6 00:08:54 2008
From: jkoney65 at yahoo.com (jkoney65)
Date: Sat, 06 Dec 2008 00:08:54 -0000
Subject: Sirius and Snape parallels again - Sirius' death (LONG)
In-Reply-To: <gha6uk+8e3d@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ghcfqm+dvph@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 185096

> 
> lizzyben: 
> 
> I just don't know. After the revelations of DH, it seems like there 
> should be some kind of forensic audit of DD's past activities, just 
> like they do when criminal activity is discovered at some big firm. 
> What was DD responsible for? 
> 
> As far as Sirius, it's pretty clear (IMO) that DD killed him off, 
but 
> was it spur of the moment or long-premeditated? It depends if you 
> prefer light tinfoil or full-hat tinfoil. For some reason I still 
> want to give DD the benefit of the doubt, that maybe he saw an 
> opportunity to dispose of a problem, but... that doesn't seem to 
> quite fit. It's not elaborate enough of a plan. If there's one 
thing 
> we know about DD, it's that he likes over-elaborate plans.


jkoney
As someone who likes conspiracy theories (second shooter on the 
grassy knoll, sure), ufo's and monsters (bigfoot, etc) I'm having a 
tough time finding enough evidence that this could be plausible.

Dumbledore helps Sirius escape by reminding Hermione of the time 
turner. He provides a space (the cave) for Sirius to hide in during 
GoF. He recommends that Sirius not leave the house for his own 
protection. Sirius could have left the house at any time. The one 
time he does to go to the station he is recognized. 

It is Sirius who heads to the MoM when he finds Harry is in trouble. 
His cockiness of laughing during a fight is what killed him. That 
scene sets up the fight between Molly & Bella. I can't remember any 
evidence that suggests that Dumbledore sent any type of spell at 
Sirius.


> lizzyben
> *full tin-foil on*
> Ahile back, I think people discussed the meaning of the chessboard 
in 
> PS - and that the invisible hand moving the chess  pieces might be 
> DD. If so, who's on the other side? You said that maybe there's no 
> one on the other side. 
> 
> And I think that's right. There's one invisible hand moving *both* 
> sides of the chess game, controlling both the black & white pieces. 
> Mixing metaphors, it's as if, above the chessboard, there's a large 
> spider's web w/a spider in the center. All the chess pieces are 
> connected to the web w/invisible strings & the spider twitches 
> strings of the web to move *both* sides closer to the center & 
create 
> confrontations. To the naked eye on the ground, it'd look like the 
> pieces are being moved by two antagonistic sides, w/o perceiving 
that 
> one entity moves them both. I think that's ultimately what is 
> happening. And it reflects DD's view of the world, in that people 
> truly are no more than pawns to him. If he can sacrifice one (or 
ten) 
> to gain some small advantage, he will. He values human life very, 
> very cheaply. Why does he play the game? IMO because he gets a 
power 
> kick & it satisfies his enormous ego. He claims the mantle of the 
> Leader of Light, while being able to control & manipulate everyone 
> around him. Even the MOM can't do *that*. 

jkoney
I think you are taking the spider web metaphor too far. I think that 
it is intended to show us that there are things going on we don't 
understand, yet. We eventually find out about how DD was hurt, we 
find out why Snape killed him and we find out that Harry wasn't 
raised as a pig for slaughter. Dumbledore had a very strong belief 
that Harry would survive his encounter with Voldemort. He just didn't 
tell anyone.


> lizzyben:
> After PS, there's not much I'd put past DD - & in that book he 
> basically manipulated *both* Harry & LV to engineer a confrontation 
> between them. He brought LV to the center by bring him back to 
> Hogwarts (Tossing Quirrel into the dumpster...) and then baiting LV 
> w/the Stone, and Harry by teaching him about the Mirror & 
obstacles. 
> Then he disappeared while the damaged child went into the hidden 
room 
> to face a dark wizard. Same thing in COS - DD knew full well that 
> Harry would be facing down Riddle. He engineered the confrontation 
in 
> DH, probably HBP & GOF too. So given that, it stands to reason that 
> he engineered the OOTP confrontation as well. He's 
> definitely baiting LV into seizing the prophecy. He sends Snape to 
do 
> Occlumency lessons that only seem to heighten the connection. DD 
says 
> that the connection only ends when LV attempts to posess Harry when 
> Harry is "full of love". Sirius is a loved one.  When Sirius is 
> killed at the MOM, DD doesn't actually kill/capture LV, but only 
> forces him to possess Harry. LV flees, connection ends. DD seems 
> rather clinical & unsurprised by any of this. IIRC, there's other 
> posts that have explained better how DD could've done this. But 
yeah. 
> He could've had Sirius killed/arrested much earlier, so I do get 
the 
> sensation that DD *waiting* for something, & that was keeping the 
> Sirius pawn "in reserve" to be brought out for the big 
confrontation.
> 

jkoney:
We don't see Dumbledore instructing Quirrel to go get himself 
possessed by Voldemort. Dumbledore isn't the one who took over Ginny 
and brought her down to the chamber. In fact DD doesn't know where 
the chamber is. He didn't give Harry the portkey to take him to 
Voldemort. I can't find the logical reason that DD would want Harry 
to confront Voldemort on his own away from any and all help.

It was Dumbledore who protected Harry in the atrium at the MoM. He 
didn't kill Voldemort because he knew he couldn't. He did try to 
capture Voldemort but he escaped. When Voldemort possessed Harry he 
didn't try to kill Harry. Harry saves himself at this point by his 
feeling of love.
 
 
> lizzyben:
> 
> I was referring the MOM fight, in which Sirius was (IMO) 
immobilized 
> to the spot for Bellatrix to dispose of. Post
> 
> -DH, I don't know how anyone can truly believe that DD was looking 
> out for Sirius' best interests. Sirius was one of, if not THE, 
> biggest obstacle to The Plan. As we know, The Plan 
> involved Harry marching placidly to death at the hands of LV. Just 
> *imagine* how Sirius would've reacted if he'd found out DD's 
> Plan! "Hell, no, you manipulative old bastard! Pack your things, 
> Harry, we're going to Barbados!" 
> 
> Sirius was independent, mistrusted DD, & truly loved & wanted what 
> was best for Harry as a person. If Harry had been able to consult 
> Sirius, he might never have done the death march at all. Thus, 
Sirius 
> is a Problem for DD. That's not "uncanonical"; that's the canon in 
> regards to DD's Plan, Sirius' status as godfather & Sirius' likely 
> reaction to such a Plan. 
> 
> Sirius was Harry's legal guardian & best positioned to take away 
DD's 
> control of Harry. After Godric's Hollow, DD took Harry away from 
> Sirius while Sirius was still in shock. DD never lifted a finger to 
> help Sirius in Azkaban for 12+ years, even though he never had a 
> trial (I wonder if DD pulled some strings there as well...) After 
> Sirius escaped, IMO DD was not happy, & could think of nothing else 
> to do but to imprision Sirius again. Until his unfortunate death. 
And 
> isn't it funny how those charges got cleared immediately after his 
> death? Why wouldn't DD want to clear the charges before? Easy - he 
> did not want Sirius to be free; he wanted Sirius out of the way, 
one 
> way or another. I'm not sure if any single person suffered as much 
as 
> Sirius because of DD's machinations. And I don't even like the guy, 
> but come on. You don't have to like someone to recognize when they 
> are being mistreated.


jkoney
DD took Harry away to protect him. Sirius was the number one suspect. 
He was supposed to be the secret keeper. Getting Harry away from him 
is logical.

The charges got cleared because Voldemort and his people were seen, 
some where captured and Sirius was fighting against them. Of course 
the minister is going to do everything possible to put the best spin 
on it and get back in DD & Harry's good graces.

I still have a problem with the great manipulation that DD did to 
Harry. DD may have set the pieces up, but Harry made the final 
decision. Doesn't it stand to reason that Harry may have wanted 
revenge on the person who killed his parents. The person who had 
Cedric killed right in front of him, the person most responsible for 
the death of Sirius? 

Revenge is a very strong emotion. We see Harry right from the start, 
never back down when he's faced with thwarting Voldemorts plans. That 
internal fire has to come from some where. I think revenge played a 
part in Harry's mak up.

 
JMO
jkoney




From lizzyben04 at yahoo.com  Sat Dec  6 02:06:57 2008
From: lizzyben04 at yahoo.com (lizzyben04)
Date: Sat, 06 Dec 2008 02:06:57 -0000
Subject: Sirius and Snape parallels again - Sirius' death (LONG)
In-Reply-To: <ghc17b+gk96@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ghcmo1+vchp@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 185097

> > Pippin:

> > You see, Sirius doesn't think  it's asking too much to expect a 
> man to
> >  die for his friends. It's more like...a privilege. 
> 
> Leah: <snip>What Dumbledore is doing with Harry is morally repugant,
even 
> though it may be the only thing to do.  And Sirius is more attached 
> to Harry personally (or the James in Harry) than Snape is. I don't 
> actually see Sirius taking Harry off to Barbados, but I could see an 
> extremely difficult, noisy, unpleasant reaction for Dumbledore to 
> deal with, and I can see why that is not in his interests.
> 
> Leah

lizzyben:

I'm not sure if Sirius would take Harry to Barbados, but there would
be A Scene. In general, I agree that Sirius would think nothing of
risking *his own* life for a friend, but that is very different from
being willing to stand back in safety & watching someone he loves die.
That is passive, *cowardly* even. It goes against almost everything
Sirius is & believes. And that's not even taking into account the
manipulation & betrayal. Sirius is fine w/an adult making a *choice*
for ones friends, which is very very different from DD raising &
training Harry for death since infancy. That IS morally repugnant.
Even Snape thought so. And if Sirius found out, he would not be quiet
about it - possibly risking DD's standing in the Order & the entire
secrecy of The Plan. No, IMO Sirius was a very real danger & DD knew it.


Leah: 
I think DD didn't *set out* to imprison Sirius or anyone else. I think
we're back to
what is the immediate subconscious reponse to needing to keep
something secret. 
<snip>
It's interesting from this PoV to look at Dumbledore's words to
Draco on the Astronomy Tower: '"...no harm has been done, you have
hurt nobody, though you are very lucky [read 'I am fortunate to have
Severus']that your unintentional victims survived...I can help you,
Draco"'. Yes, Dumbledore's happy to overlook attempted murder,and
long-term grievous bodily harm inflicted on Katie Bell to get Draco
on side. I'm just wondering whether Dumbledore used similar words to
Sirius after the Prank, with an offer of Order membership.

And he's still doing it on the Tower. "Come over to the right
side, Draco, and we can hide you more completely than you can
possibly imagine". Be afraid, Draco, be very afraid. 

lizzyben:

LOL, "I have a lovely house in Godric's Hollow, you'll be quite
safe..." It seems like DD had some kind of blackmail against almost
every Order member, so maybe he did recruit Sirius that way. It
actually seems like Lily & James were the only ones who joined the
Order totally voluntarily. Although it is quite odd that DD appointed
James to be Head Boy! I agree that DD isn't plotting evil; it's mostly
that DD can't help but repeat the pattern wherever he goes. 

Pippin:
<SNIP>
I think JKR sees individuals as a lot less malleable than you do, and
therefore she sees Dumbledore's machinations, whatever they were, as
more foolish than dangerous. 


Lizzyben:
But the machinations actually *work*. We don't see Slughorn telling DD
to go to hell, we see him being manipulated into doing what DD wants.
If Harry actually knew DD's plan to use him as Slughorn-bait, he'd
probably say no thanks. But because DD doesn't tell him any reason for
the visit, Harry is malleable & able to be dragged along. Heck, DD's
whole purpose was to mold Harry into someone willing to die for
Hogwarts & DD, and in the end Harry did. We never see someone in canon
actually stand up to DD. So I don't see the lesson that people are not
malleable; instead more often we are shown how easy it is for DD to
manipulate & fool the people around him. I just can't agree. Authority
figures DO have an enormous amount of influence & power over people,
especially when they are able to conceal the truth from them. I just
can't see that as anything other than dangerous. But maybe JKR has a
different view. You do get the sense that she views DD's actions much
less harshly than many readers; the narrative often seems to side with
him; and in fact she has said that DD is a self-insert for herself,
which.. uh.. maybe she shouldn't say too much in public. That's where
there's the fundamental disconnect is for me; but maybe it is just a
value difference, as you say.

Alla:

Heh, I have a feeling that on this one I will be defending
Dumbledore, but again I am asking for clarification. Are you in
essence saying that Voldemort did not do anything that Dumbledore
would not want him to and all those killings and atrocities done by
DE and Voldemort is what Dumbledore wants to happen? I am not quite
sure if this is in jest or not (I know you said full foil tin on, but
I do not know what that word means), but if it is not in jest,
here I cannot agree. 

Lizzyben:

Sorry, "tin-foil hat" is a slang term for a really crazy conspiracy
theory. I was referring to the most paranoid, expansive possible view
of DD's machinations. But I don't really believe that DD was
controlling every move LV made. LV was indeed a terror in his first
incarnation. But IMO DD often did manipulate LV's side ? through
leaks, baits & traps ? in the same way he manipulated the Order. PS is
a perfect example of that. "Seven Potters" is another example of DD
manipulating both the Order & the Death Eaters into a confrontation.

And I don't think of DD cackling evilly at how he's fooled everyone; I
agree that he believes that he is doing what is best for the greater
good. But it's just that IMO he's so blinded by his own issues &
damage that he is NOT capable of deciding what that is. And I can't
help noticing how DD seems to, almost, feed off of & benefit from
these various Dark Wizards in an almost symbiotic fashion. How they
seem to satisfy many of DD's own needs ? for power, for influence, for
adulation & glory & even for disposing of troublesome people.  I read
DD as basically a tyrant, w/ a need to control & exercise power.  He
won't let himself get power through the MOM, so it's almost like
subconsiously he finds covert ways of accumulating power. Without a
Dark Lord, he's just an old headmaster whose time has passed. W/a Dark
Lord, DD is adored & adulated as the "only one LV fears;" he gains
followers & minions to manipulate; & enormous power & influence. And
even more, he gets to create an idealized self-image as Leader of
Light, Epitome of Goodness, Protector of Children, almost a God, that
satisfies his ego & hides his own moral failures. I think DD kind of
likes having a LV around; and almost needs one. LV is DD's shadow;
which allows his light to shine all the brighter. 

Psychologically, I think DD is a malignant narcissist. Narcissists
have a need for "narcissistic supply" - which is attention, adulation,
worship, etc. They gain this adulation by creating a "false self" - an
idealized self-image as good, superior, grandiose, etc.; hiding away
the "true self" where even they are not aware of it. That's really
similar to DD's created image as the Epitome of Goodness; & the way he
seems to keep hiding away the shame of his true self (Muggle-hater,
damaged child, etc.) where no one can find it. It's all about DD in
the end; & the whole world is merely a stage for his psychodrama to
play out. In that sense, yes, I do think that DD has an interest in
sustaining & even creating a LV.

There's a definite Gothic twinge to DD's story. And Gothic literature
often employs this concept of a monstrous double ? a double who acts
out  the suppressed wishes of the other person. Like Jekyll & Hyde,
Frankenstein & Frankenstein's. Monster, etc. So perhaps LV is
ultimately DD's "monstrous double" who allowed him to gather the power
& control he would not allow himself. And the two remain united even
after death; DD's idealized 'false self' clothed in stars like a God,
LV's 'true self' stunted & hidden under a chair. That visual image is
almost the perfect metaphor for what DD has been doing all along. It's
all so very very weird & I don't think I'm explaining it right. 

Sorry, but I think a clinical definition of narcissism would be
helpful here: 

1.?An exaggerated sense of self-importance 
Translation:?Grandiosity is the hallmark of narcissism.
- DD's grandiose plans; exaggerated self-importance, etc. are pretty
obvious throughout. Claiming that he had sole care of Ariana is
another example. 

2.?Preoccupation with fantasies of unlimited success, power,
brilliance, beauty, or ideal love
Translation:?Narcissists cultivate solipsistic or "autistic"
fantasies, which is to say that they live in their own little worlds
(and react with affront when reality dares to intrude).

- Aberforth says DD spent all his time in his room, communicating
w/"great wizards". DD himself confesses that he was obsessed
w/becoming great, powerful, famous, etc. 

3.?Believes he is "special" and can only be understood by, or should
associate with, other special or high-status people (or institutions)
Translation:?Narcissists think that everyone who is not special and
superior is worthless. By definition, normal, ordinary, and average
aren't special and superior, and so, to narcissists, they are worthless.
- That explains a lot of DD's attitude toward his followers & people
in general. First he thought he should rule over Muggles; later he
manipulates & controls his followers as his inferiors. Only
Grindelwald is a true equal. 

4.?Requires excessive admiration
- OK, this is where this comes in. If DD is a narcissist, he actually
needs to be admired, adored, loved by people around him. That's his
narcisistic supply. And that's why he needs the image as a Good
leader, whom the entire wizarding world adores. LV allows DD to gain
the admiration, glory, & power he secretly craves.

5.?Has a sense of entitlement
- Felt entitled to greatness; resented his family slowing him down.

6.?Selfishly takes advantage of others to achieve his own ends
Translation:?Narcissists use other people to get what they want
without caring about the cost to the other people.
- No explanation needed? 

7.?Lacks empathy
This is the biggie. DD truly seems not only unwilling, but unable to
understand what other people are going through. That's why he was so
cold to Snape & Harry while they were grieving, so willing to raise
Harry for slaughter, so casually able to endanger & even kill other
Order members. He just doesn't care.

http://www.halcyon.com/jmashmun/npd/dsm-iv.html


 So DD manages the Order to get the admiration & adoration he craves.
As others have pointed out, the Order acts mostly like a personality
cult around DD & DD values personal loyalty to Him most highly. He
doesn't value human life because he sees them all as inferior to him.
In a wider sense, he lets crises develop because that increases
people's fear, malleability, & need for DD's authority (like the
Basilik, LV's rise, etc.) DD creates the problem for which he is the
only cure ? reaping the power, adulation & control that comes to him
as a result. So in that way, yes, I do see DD moving both the black &
white pieces for his own self-aggrandizement.


lizzyben

> Alla:
> 
> Okay now I am confused. I told Pippin that I really like her point, I
> do not believe Dumbledore would have been allowed to kill and keep
> Elder wand, however are you saying that it only works literally? So
> if Dumbledore used wandless spell he would have still been allowed to
> keep it.


lizzyben: 

Oh, God, I can't keep the Elder Wand rules straight. But if the Elder
Wand could not be used to *kill*, this scenario would allow DD to
dispose of Sirius w/o using a lethal spell. Immobilization spells do
not kill or even harm on their own - if DD could cast them at the
Death Eaters w/o problems, IMO he could certainly cast one at Sirius
as well.





From zanooda2 at yahoo.com  Sat Dec  6 05:16:35 2008
From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2)
Date: Sat, 06 Dec 2008 05:16:35 -0000
Subject: A minor doubt ...
In-Reply-To: <gh69oe+k0j5@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ghd1rj+53hj@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 185098

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "samajdar_parantap" 
<samajdar.parantap at ...> wrote:

> From the portrayal of bloody baron , does not it seem very unlikely
> that he will be a Slytherin ghost ?... Attacks gray lady without 
> thinking about consequence and above all - commits suicide for 
> his guilt. All this seems very much gryffindorish.


zanooda: 

I suppose not all Slythrins are the same, just like not all Gryffindors 
are the same (Pettigrew especially comes to mind :-)). As for the 
Bloody Baron - we know from the books that some Slytherins are capable 
of obsessive love (Snape) - and I don't mean it in a bad way :-), and 
we know that they are capable of giving their life for something they 
consider worthy (Regulus). Besides, we know too little about the Bloody 
Baron to really understand his motives :-). 




From sweenlit at gmail.com  Sat Dec  6 07:05:16 2008
From: sweenlit at gmail.com (Lynda Cordova)
Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2008 23:05:16 -0800
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Individual characters too stubborn for Dumbledore to manipulate or not? WAS:
In-Reply-To: <ghc6ih+4rud@eGroups.com>
References: <ghc4r6+ag1v@eGroups.com> <ghc6ih+4rud@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <43e41d1e0812052305m21533aeo3e467c86136c1768@mail.gmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 185099

I realized that DD was a manipulator from early in SS with my first reading,
and manipulators are invariably flawed people, so I was not surprised at the
end of the series when the depth of his manipulations came out--as for the
number of people who were controlled by him, yes, it was nearly everybody
with a few notable exceptions; Voldemort, Pettigrew (at times), Snape (at
times).  However, I know manipulators in real life who have nearly as much
influence (or as much) as DD did in the books. Its sad to see otherwise
independent, intelligent people constantly changing their opinions because a
family member/friend/teacher/pastor convinced them that their way was
better, but it happens.  What JKR had Dumbledore do, in other words is not
uncommon nor is the fact that people were swayed by him.

Lynda


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From foxmoth at qnet.com  Sat Dec  6 17:17:22 2008
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Sat, 06 Dec 2008 17:17:22 -0000
Subject: Sirius and Snape parallels again - Sirius' death (LONG)
In-Reply-To: <ghcmo1+vchp@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ghec32+sq8g@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 185100


> lizzyben:
> 
> I'm not sure if Sirius would take Harry to Barbados, but there would
> be A Scene. In general, I agree that Sirius would think nothing of
> risking *his own* life for a friend, but that is very different from
> being willing to stand back in safety & watching someone he loves die.

Pippin:

You mean like Harry and Hermione were willing to watch while Ron got
clobbered in the chess game? It would have been  loyal and brave of
them to be taken also, but it would have left nobody to deal with
"Snape". 

If there were a way to transfer the soul bit from Harry's body to
Sirius's so that Sirius could die instead,  I'm sure Sirius would have
volunteered in a heartbeat. But since the only known way to dislodge a
soul bit from its container is to put the container beyond magical
repair, that wouldn't have helped. 

As for standing back in safety, there  are still going to be many
evils in the world after Voldemort is gone,  so  it might be  a good
thing if as many good  people as possible were left alive to deal with
them. I'm sure Sirius would see the truth in that. He'd rage at the
unfairness of it all, perhaps. But he'd just be like Dudley throwing a
fit because he got two presents less than last year.

Dumbledore has Scenes with lots of people: Snape, Harry, the Dursleys,
Fudge and so on. Why would he be afraid of a scene with Sirius? As he
says, he gets complaints every day about how he runs the school, why
should he be afraid of getting complaints about how he runs the Order? 

Harry and Hermione made a scene when Ron wanted to sacrifice himself
and Ron shut them up: "Do you want to stop Snape or not?" We don't get
the scene with someone trying to stop Harry because we've already had
something similar about a million times.

 
> Pippin:
> <SNIP>
> I think JKR sees individuals as a lot less malleable than you do,
and therefore she sees Dumbledore's machinations, whatever they were,
as more foolish than dangerous. 
> 
> 
> Lizzyben:
> But the machinations actually *work*.

Pippin:
The question is not whether the machinations work, but whether the
truth wouldn't have worked just as well, with a lot less fuss.
Slughorn *does* tell DD to go to hell, figuratively. DD can't get the
memory out of him. Harry does, by telling him the truth, which is even
truer than Harry knows -- he's the Chosen One and he needs that memory. 

Once Snape and Harry learn the truth, they're still willing to do what
Dumbledore asked of them -- doesn't that argue that he could have told
them the truth in the first place, provided  they trusted him enough
to believe it?

We have a problem trusting Dumbledore because we can see the full
extent of his failures and his blind spots. But no one in the books
has such a god's eye view, and most  of his allies have the same blind
spots as he does. 

You'd have to be a bit of a monarchist to trust DD, I suppose, and
IMO, JKR isn't easy with that. I think she makes us see that DD's
followers were just lucky that he really was as dedicated to
overthrowing LV as they thought he was. 

Lizzyben:
  We never see someone in canon  actually stand up to DD.

Pippin:
Lily and James. Fudge. Scrimgeour. Percy. Rita Skeeter. 

Sirius won't give up his grudge against Snape, Snape won't give up his
grudge against James, Harry won't give up his grudge against Draco. 
None of it is in Dumbledore's interest, it drives him up the wall, you
can see, and he can't make it stop.

The Order was outnumbered 20 to one in the first war. Why? If so many
people trusted Dumbledore and hated Voldemort, and Dumbledore is so
good at molding people, why couldn't Dumbledore mold as many as he needed?

As for Dumbledore being a malignant narcissist, they are by definition
incapable of worrying that they'll care about someone too much.

Pippin




From danjerri at madisoncounty.net  Sat Dec  6 19:04:38 2008
From: danjerri at madisoncounty.net (Jerri&Dan Chase)
Date: Sat, 6 Dec 2008 13:04:38 -0600
Subject: ToBtB
In-Reply-To: <1228564621.3492.35148.m46@yahoogroups.com>
References: <1228564621.3492.35148.m46@yahoogroups.com>
Message-ID: <73FAAC0703BB49F4BDBACBA61B9DEA41@JerriPC>

No: HPFGUIDX 185101

As a book by JKR about Harry Potter and his world, is the book The Tales of 
Beedle the Bard open for discussion on this list?

Jerri 




From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Sun Dec  7 01:44:42 2008
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Sun, 07 Dec 2008 01:44:42 -0000
Subject: Dumbledore the Manipulator WAS :Re: Sirius and Snape parallels again
In-Reply-To: <ghec32+sq8g@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ghf9qa+gf83@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 185102

Pippin:

You mean like Harry and Hermione were willing to watch while Ron got
clobbered in the chess game? It would have been loyal and brave of
them to be taken also, but it would have left nobody to deal with
"Snape". <SNIP>

Alla:

They wanted to try, did they not? They wanted  to try to save their 
friend and that was not quite real battle, was it not? I would think 
they knew pretty well that Ron was not really dying, or anything? The 
ones who went ahead could have been in a very real danger, but Ron? I 
mean, yes I know he was hurt, but to me this is not a direct analogy, 
but quite distinct one. IMO of course. 


Pippin:
Dumbledore has Scenes with lots of people: Snape, Harry, the Dursleys,
Fudge and so on. Why would he be afraid of a scene with Sirius? As he
says, he gets complaints every day about how he runs the school, why
should he be afraid of getting complaints about how he runs the 
Order? <SNIP>

Alla:

Oh I agree that Dumbledore is not afraid of just ANY scene. However, 
I do think that Dumbledore may just be very afraid of the scene where 
Sirius may threaten to take Harry and go somewhere. This is a scene, 
which result could be the threat to Dumbledore's plan for Harry. You  
are arguing that Dumbledore would be fine with that?



Pippin:
The question is not whether the machinations work, but whether the
truth wouldn't have worked just as well, with a lot less fuss.
Slughorn *does* tell DD to go to hell, figuratively. DD can't get the
memory out of him. Harry does, by telling him the truth, which is even
truer than Harry knows -- he's the Chosen One and he needs that 
memory.

Alla:

Hm,  the only reason Harry was able to even **get** to Slughorn in 
the first place was because Dumbledore took him to Slughorn. The only 
reason why Harry was able to guilt memory out of  drunken Slughorn 
was because Dumbledore molded him into doing something that he really 
really did not want to do ? return to teaching. To make sure he 
returns to teaching  Dumbledore put in front of him a bat ? a boy 
with green eyes of the exact same shape as his favorite student.
 I am very amused by your suggestion that truth would have indeed 
worked with less fuss here. Slughorn was in no condition to **hear** 
the truth and make an informed choice IMO, he was completely drunk. 
YES, Harry needed that memory, but he got it after the chain of very 
long and annoying manipulation of the man IMO.

Pippin:
Once Snape and Harry learn the truth, they're still willing to do what
Dumbledore asked of them -- doesn't that argue that he could have told
them the truth in the first place, provided they trusted him enough
to believe it? <SNIP>

Alla:

I do not get it. Snape is angry when he learns the truth, but he 
still sticks with doing what Dumbledore tells him to, I do not see 
that Snape decides to do it because he feels it is a right thing to 
do. I am not sure how you figure that Snape just makes this decision.

Harry ? sure, scene in the Headmaster's office to me beautifully 
describes that Harry chose to follow Dumbledore's plan. However, I do 
not see how this proves your point. Harry is at the end of the robe. 
He sees no other choices but to follow Dumbledore's plan.  But no 
other options were provided to him EVER. How about Dumbledore doing 
some brainstorming and trying to figure out whether Horcrux can be 
taken out of alive Harry? How about Dumbledore involving Harry in it?

I disagree with Lizzyben  that Dumbledore groomed Harry for death 
from infancy of course, however I disagree with her in the degrees of 
the argument, not so much in principle. I guess it is a question of 
nature v nurture, etc. How much of Harry's saving people thing been 
inborn? I certainly agree for example that some character traits we 
inherit ? I totally see how shy my niece was for example when she was 
three months old and how differently my nephew reacts to the people 
who are not his immediate family members.

However, if Lizzyben ever decides to rephrase her proposition that 
Dumbledore thoroughly cultivated whatever sacrificial character Harry 
may have inherited and deliberately not presented him with any other 
options than to die for others, I would totally agree with her. I 
think saving people IS in Harry's soul, however the degree to which 
Dumbledore cultivated it should be on his conscience only. I do not 
think that Dumbledore for example let Harry go to Chambers 
deliberately, since as it was mentioned he did not know where it was. 
But I am absolutely convinced that he knew about Qurrelmort and did 
not move a finger when three eleven year olds went to the mission 
that could have resulted in their deaths. Yes, I know I said above 
that it was not real, but I meant the puzzles part.

Pippin:
<SNIP>
The Order was outnumbered 20 to one in the first war. Why? If so many
people trusted Dumbledore and hated Voldemort, and Dumbledore is so
good at molding people, why couldn't Dumbledore mold as many as he 
needed? <SNIP>

Alla:

Well, we did agree that Dumbledore does not want to manipulate crowd, 
no? I think the answer is that he simply did not have enough people 
on hand whom he could manipulate individually?










From juli17 at aol.com  Sun Dec  7 03:04:14 2008
From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17 at aol.com)
Date: Sat, 6 Dec 2008 22:04:14 EST
Subject: Sirius and Snape parallels again - Sirius' death (LONG)  Posted by: "jkoney65"
Message-ID: <d1b.308be2ac.366c972e@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 185103



jkoney:
We don't see Dumbledore instructing Quirrel to go get  himself 
possessed by Voldemort. Dumbledore isn't the one who took over  Ginny 
and brought her down to the chamber. In fact DD doesn't know where  
the chamber is. He didn't give Harry the portkey to take him to  
Voldemort. I can't find the logical reason that DD would want Harry 
to  confront Voldemort on his own away from any and all help.

It was  Dumbledore who protected Harry in the atrium at the MoM. He 
didn't kill  Voldemort because he knew he couldn't. He did try to 
capture Voldemort but  he escaped. When Voldemort possessed Harry he 
didn't try to kill Harry.  Harry saves himself at this point by his 
feeling of  love.


Julie:
My problem is that Dumbledore is supposed to be the greatest--and  presumably
the wisest--wizard alive. He's supposed to be perceptive about people. He  is 
a
Legilimens (not sure if this is directly stated, but one presumes he has  
some 
talent at it). Yet we are supposed to believe he is truly unable to  
recognize the
dangers the string of idiots who teach DADA each year bring to Hogwarts  and
to Harry (the personality-altered Quirrel, the conceited and inept  Lockhart, 
the
wishy-washy Lupin--sorry but he was protecting a Sirius he still had reason  
to
believe was a killer, the impersonator of one of his closest friends--who  
also 
happened to be mad!). And if it seems unbelievable that Dumbledore  wouldn't
see something amiss and take some proactive steps to protect Harry,  then we
have to assume that he is being deliberately obtuse and oblivious, willing  
if not
actually pressuring Harry to face all these dangers on his own.   (And I do 
know
Dumbledore sometimes does step in to help--Fawkes, at the MoM--but even  he
isn't always able to do so--Shrieking Shack, the Graveyard.)
 
Of the two, I have great difficulty seeing Dumbledore as completely stupid  or
unaware. It's unbelievable to me that he is really unable to figure out  that 
his
friend Moody isn't his friend Moody. What is more believable for a man of 
Dumbledore's age, experience and intelligence is that he doesn't WANT  to 
look too closely, that he deliberately ignores the signs, that he prefers  to 
take a position of non-interference and allow matters to "take their  course."
I can even understand the concept of allowing Harry to face these growing 
dangers--accepting the chance that if he is incapable or not the chosen  boy
of the prophecy, then he'll die early and allow Dumbledore time to  come up
with another plan to save the Wizarding World--against the hope that  Harry
will learn via "trial by fire" and will ultimately  defeat Voldemort. 
Dumbledore's
own words about the unexpected emergence of concern for  Harry's welfare
complicating his plans supports this scenario. He planned to be a  distant,
uncaring general, sacrificing his individual soldiers in battle so  that he 
might
ultimately win the war. It just didn't work out that way with Harry, though  
it
did with everyone else including Snape, Sirius, Lupin, and the occasional  
student
in the crossfire (Cedric). I'm sure Dumbledore felt a moment of  sadness at 
each
of their deaths, but he deliberately avoided caring too much about any of 
them--except Harry, inadvertently--as to avoid any personal anguish  over 
their
deaths.
 
In some ways, I think Dumbledore was quite a coward. And perhaps what he 
said to Snape ("Sometimes I think we sort too early") applied as much to 
himself as anyone. Methinks he should have been a Ravenclaw (meaning
no disrespect to that house, as cold, clear logic is an asset in a war  
leader).



jkoney
DD took Harry away to protect him. Sirius  was the number one suspect. 
He was supposed to be the secret keeper.  Getting Harry away from him 
is logical.

The charges got cleared  because Voldemort and his people were seen, 
some where captured and Sirius  was fighting against them. Of course 
the minister is going to do  everything possible to put the best spin 
on it and get back in DD &  Harry's good graces.

I still have a problem with the great manipulation  that DD did to 
Harry. DD may have set the pieces up, but Harry made the  final 
decision

Julie:
That is the method of manipulation, isn't it? Setting the pieces  up in the 
most
attractive way, appealing to your subject's weaknesses (Harry's desire to  
save
people, Snape's desire to atone to Lily, etc), and then watching while they 
succumb to your bait. They don't HAVE to do it, you aren't FORCING  them, 
but if it is deliberate and in service to your ultimate goal, then it is  
manipulation, 
whether it is for good or bad. And no one was better at it than Dumbledore, 
though almost every other character had their moments ("The way you get  into 
the Whomping Willow is..."). 
 
Julie 
**************Make your life easier with all your friends, email, and 
favorite sites in one place.  Try it now. 
(http://www.aol.com/?optin=new-dp&icid=aolcom40vanity&ncid=emlcntaolcom00000010)


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Sun Dec  7 05:06:16 2008
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Sun, 07 Dec 2008 05:06:16 -0000
Subject: ToBtB
In-Reply-To: <73FAAC0703BB49F4BDBACBA61B9DEA41@JerriPC>
Message-ID: <ghflk8+7muv@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 185104

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Jerri&Dan Chase" <danjerri at ...> 
wrote:
>
> As a book by JKR about Harry Potter and his world, is the book The 
Tales of 
> Beedle the Bard open for discussion on this list?
> 
> Jerri
>


Yes, sure. Please make sure to leave SPOILER space for a week or two 
when discussing it. 

Alika elf.




From HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com  Sun Dec  7 17:57:27 2008
From: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com (HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com)
Date: 7 Dec 2008 17:57:27 -0000
Subject: Weekly Chat, 12/7/2008, 1:00 pm 
Message-ID: <1228672647.11.16738.m54@yahoogroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 185105

Reminder from: HPforGrownups Yahoo! Group
 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/cal

Weekly Chat
Sunday December 7, 2008
1:00 pm - 1:00 pm
(This event repeats every week.)
Location: http://www.chatzy.com/792755223574

Notes:
Just a reminder, Sunday chat starts in about one hour.

To get to the HPfGU room follow this link:
http://www.chatzy.com/792755223574

Create a user name for yourself, whatever you want
to be called.

Enter the password: hpfguchat

Click "Join Chat" on the lower right. 

Chat start times:
11 am Pacific US
12 noon Mountain US
1 pm Central US
2 pm Eastern US
7 pm UK


All Rights Reserved
 Copyright  2008 
 Yahoo! Inc.
 http://www.yahoo.com

Privacy Policy:
 http://privacy.yahoo.com/privacy/us

Terms of Service:
 http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://archive.hpfgu.org/pipermail/hpforgrownups/attachments/20081207/33376c82/attachment.html>

From kaamita at yahoo.com  Sun Dec  7 18:49:43 2008
From: kaamita at yahoo.com (Heather Hadden)
Date: Sun, 7 Dec 2008 10:49:43 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: ToBtB
In-Reply-To: <ghflk8+7muv@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <551471.88854.qm@web56503.mail.re3.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 185106

I just got a copy of it today for my birthday! Yay!
?
Heather

--- On Sun, 12/7/08, dumbledore11214 <dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com> wrote:

From: dumbledore11214 <dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com>
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: ToBtB
To: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com
Date: Sunday, December 7, 2008, 12:06 AM






--- In HPforGrownups@ yahoogroups. com, "Jerri&Dan Chase" <danjerri at .. .> 
wrote:
>
> As a book by JKR about Harry Potter and his world, is the book The 
Tales of 
> Beedle the Bard open for discussion on this list?
> 
> Jerri
>

Yes, sure. Please make sure to leave SPOILER space for a week or two 
when discussing it. 

Alika elf.

 














      

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From foxmoth at qnet.com  Sun Dec  7 19:09:30 2008
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Sun, 07 Dec 2008 19:09:30 -0000
Subject: Dumbledore the Manipulator WAS :Re: Sirius and Snape parallels again
In-Reply-To: <ghf9qa+gf83@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ghh71b+32po@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 185107

 
> Alla:
> 
> They wanted to try, did they not? They wanted  to try to save their 
> friend and that was not quite real battle, was it not? I would think
 they knew pretty well that Ron was not really dying, or anything? 

Pippin:
Um, how would they know that? They'd already passed Fluffy and the
Devil's Snare, either of which might have killed them. It was pure
luck  that Hermione was able to free herself before the plant could
immobilize her and keep her from using her wand.


> Alla:
> 
> Oh I agree that Dumbledore is not afraid of just ANY scene. However,
 I do think that Dumbledore may just be very afraid of the scene where
 Sirius may threaten to take Harry and go somewhere.

Pippin:
So what? Are Ron, Hermione and Hogwarts going to be safe if Harry runs
away? They won't be -- Voldemort has his own reasons for wanting
Hogwarts in his power, Muggleborns dead and blood traitors punished.
Harry knows that. IMO, Sirius had no more chance of keeping Harry out
of the fight than Harry and Dumbledore had of keeping Sirius out of
it. Harry would flee, as we saw in OOP, only if he were convinced his
friends would be safer because of it -- but it would be manipulation
to make him believe that, because it just isn't true. 

Anyway, I still don't get the scenario where Sirius doesn't want his
godson to share his values. Harry couldn't possibly respect anyone who
was that much of a hypocrite. And neither would I. 

"I believe that people should die to protect their friends, but I
don't want you to do it " -- that's not saying I love you. It's either
saying my values are okay for me but not for you, or else that my
friends were worth dying for but yours aren't. I think Sirius would
have been risking a punch in the nose if he'd tried that one. And he'd
have earned it.

> Alla:
> 
> Hm,  the only reason Harry was able to even **get** to Slughorn in 
> the first place was because Dumbledore took him to Slughorn. The
only  reason why Harry was able to guilt memory out of  drunken
Slughorn  was because Dumbledore molded him into doing something that
he really  really did not want to do ? return to teaching.

Pippin:
But Slughorn did want to return to collecting, which he couldn't do
while he was hiding out. Dumbledore brought Harry to him, but it was
Harry who  pointed out that hiding out was costing Slughorn more than
he thought. 

Paradoxically, the drunkenness gave *Harry* courage -- the courage to
admit that he was the Chosen One. Slughorn would have been willing to
cooperate, IMO, if Harry had been willing to tell him that before. He
was practically begging to know. 


> Alla:
> 
> I do not get it. Snape is angry when he learns the truth, but he 
> still sticks with doing what Dumbledore tells him to, I do not see 
> that Snape decides to do it because he feels it is a right thing to 
> do. I am not sure how you figure that Snape just makes this decision.

Pippin:
If he didn't feel it was the right thing to do, his guilt would show
itself. I don't see any signs of that. He has that big guilty moment
in HBP, but we're not told who it's for. So it's probably for
everyone, everyone  he couldn't save, I think. 

Alla:
 How about Dumbledore doing  some brainstorming and trying to figure
out whether Horcrux can be  taken out of alive Harry? How about
Dumbledore involving Harry in it?

Pippin:

Right, DD needs a Manhattan Project -- get all the best minds in
wizarding together and they can make a lot of horcruxes to experiment
with. You do see some ethical problems with that, I hope? 

Anyway, Harry's own intuition told him that the way to destroy a
horcrux is by destroying its container -- that's how he got rid of the
diary. 


Alla:
> But I am absolutely convinced that he knew about Qurrelmort and did 
> not move a finger when three eleven year olds went to the mission 
> that could have resulted in their deaths. Yes, I know I said above 
> that it was not real, but I meant the puzzles part.

Pippin:
Convinced by what? Dumbledore says in OOP that he didn't expect Harry
to go after the Stone, or at any rate to encounter Voldemort so quickly.

"much sooner than I had anticipated, you found yourself face-to-face
with Voldemort." --OOP ch 37 

The facts bear him out, IMO.

 Dumbledore knows that Quirrell has been corrupted. He can also guess
that  Voldemort is nearby and is inhabiting a feeble body which needs
unicorn blood to sustain it. However, there's no reason to suspect
that it's Quirrell, who merely looks pale and unhappy -- not an
unusual state for Voldemort's minions. 

Quirrell is a mediocre wizard who lacks confidence and would not  dare
to challenge the traps on his own, or get very far if he did.
Dumbledore would expect Voldemort to bide his time until he can
ensnare a more powerful wizard to aid him, and that's just what seems
to be happening. 

 Quirrell waits for months after he has found out how to get past
Fluffy, putting Dumbledore further off his guard. At last he's able to
decoy Dumbledore out of the castle, which Dumbledore has probably left
 many times before that night without anything untoward occurring--as
McGonagall says, a great wizard has many demands on his time.  

There was no outward indication that Quirrell was going to make his
move that night. Harry intuited it through the scar connection, which
Dumbledore does not have. There was no reason for Dumbledore to
suspect that Harry had gone after Quirrell until he met Ron and
Hermione in Entrance Hall. 

> Alla:
> 
> Well, we did agree that Dumbledore does not want to manipulate
crowd,  no? I think the answer is that he simply did not have enough
people  on hand whom he could manipulate individually?

Pippin:
Huh? He's the Hogwarts headmaster, he has access to a thousand young
impressionable minds, not to mention their parents, the best wizarding
minds of the day and all the people he meets through his other
offices. There must have been many people as eager to join the Order
as Fred and George were. But they're rejected because they don't
realize what they're getting into, and if they did they wouldn't agree
to it. 

I think Dumbledore picked only people whom he felt would approve if
they understood what he was doing.  That was presumptuous, but in fact
he doesn't leave a trail of people who regret helping him, and that
makes him very different from Riddle. 

Pippin




From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Sun Dec  7 19:29:36 2008
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Sun, 07 Dec 2008 19:29:36 -0000
Subject: Dumbledore the Manipulator WAS :Re: Sirius and Snape parallels again
In-Reply-To: <ghh71b+32po@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ghh870+s52o@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 185108

> > Alla:
> > 
> > They wanted to try, did they not? They wanted  to try to save 
their 
> > friend and that was not quite real battle, was it not? I would 
think
>  they knew pretty well that Ron was not really dying, or anything? 
> 
> Pippin:
> Um, how would they know that? They'd already passed Fluffy and the
> Devil's Snare, either of which might have killed them. It was pure
> luck  that Hermione was able to free herself before the plant could
> immobilize her and keep her from using her wand.

Alla:

True, however, my main point was that they did try even if did not 
come out well.


> 
> > Alla:
> > 
> > Oh I agree that Dumbledore is not afraid of just ANY scene. 
However,
>  I do think that Dumbledore may just be very afraid of the scene 
where
>  Sirius may threaten to take Harry and go somewhere.
> 
> Pippin:
> So what? Are Ron, Hermione and Hogwarts going to be safe if Harry 
runs
> away? They won't be -- Voldemort has his own reasons for wanting
> Hogwarts in his power, Muggleborns dead and blood traitors punished.
> Harry knows that. IMO, Sirius had no more chance of keeping Harry 
out
> of the fight than Harry and Dumbledore had of keeping Sirius out of
> it.

Alla:

You keep saying that Sirius would want to keep Harry out of the 
**fight**. I don't. I am saying that Sirius would want to keep Harry 
out of Dumbledore' clutches if he knew what Dumbledore would have 
prepared for him. I do not think that Dumbledore's way was 
necessarily the only way to win a fight, but we had been through the 
other possibilities for another stories too many times in the past 
lol.

Pippin:
<SNIP>
> Anyway, I still don't get the scenario where Sirius doesn't want his
> godson to share his values. Harry couldn't possibly respect anyone 
who
> was that much of a hypocrite. And neither would I. <SNIP>

Alla:

Neither would I, however it looks like we see what Sirius' values are 
similarly but different.

>> Pippin:
<SNIP>
> Paradoxically, the drunkenness gave *Harry* courage -- the courage 
to
> admit that he was the Chosen One. Slughorn would have been willing 
to
> cooperate, IMO, if Harry had been willing to tell him that before. 
He
> was practically begging to know. 

Alla:

Not sure about that, but I do not believe I have an additional canon, 
so just different interpretations of the same one.

 
> Pippin:
> If he didn't feel it was the right thing to do, his guilt would show
> itself. I don't see any signs of that. He has that big guilty moment
> in HBP, but we're not told who it's for. So it's probably for
> everyone, everyone  he couldn't save, I think. 

Alla:

The last moment I see of Snape when he hears about Dumbledore's plan 
is pig for slaughter. I do not see anything to the contrary, him 
expressing that this is such a cool idea. His guilt does not show, 
neither does his hearty approval. I believe that this means that he 
felt it was a wrong thing to do, but he would do so since it was 
Dumbledore's orders and he always followed them.



> Alla:
>  How about Dumbledore doing  some brainstorming and trying to figure
> out whether Horcrux can be  taken out of alive Harry? How about
> Dumbledore involving Harry in it?
> 
> Pippin:
> 
> Right, DD needs a Manhattan Project -- get all the best minds in
> wizarding together and they can make a lot of horcruxes to 
experiment
> with. You do see some ethical problems with that, I hope? 
<SNIP>

Alla:

Um, with your scenario sure, however that was not mine. I was talking 
about book research, not horcrux making. I thought it was obvious 
that I would not expect Dumbledore to do real life demonstration, lol.




> Pippin:
> Convinced by what? Dumbledore says in OOP that he didn't expect 
Harry
> to go after the Stone, or at any rate to encounter Voldemort so 
quickly.

Alla:

Dumbledore says many things in that speech. He says that he will tell 
Harry everything too. Would it be too much of me to say that he IS 
shown a liar now and I do not believe him more often than I do?

I am convinced by very old post by Dicentra who IMO shown very 
beatifully that Dumbledore wrote book 1 and why. I think link is in 
recommended posts and I believe I 


> Pippin:
<SNIP>
There must have been many people as eager to join the Order
> as Fred and George were. But they're rejected because they don't
> realize what they're getting into, and if they did they wouldn't 
agree
> to it. <SNIP>

Alla:

Maybe. However I think that if there were many people to join and 
Dumbledore rejected them, he did it for a different reason than you 
describe, heh. I think he saw a glimpse in their minds and decided 
that they would not be quick to do all what Dumbledore says and too 
suceptible to manipulation.

Pippin:
> I think Dumbledore picked only people whom he felt would approve if
> they understood what he was doing.  That was presumptuous, but in 
fact
> he doesn't leave a trail of people who regret helping him, and that
> makes him very different from Riddle. 


Alla:

As I said, I almost hate Dumbledore now, however I did not reach a 
stage yet where I will call him same as Riddle, of course not. I 
think he is the example of politician who will do anything, literally 
ANYTHING to achieve his goals, even if the goals are admirable. 
However in the process of doing so, I think he became close enough in 
a sense that he would do things that in my minds good guys should not 
do.


And of course there are not many people who will regret helping him, 
vast majority of them seems to be dead. I am not talking about 
unknown WW, of course, I am talking about characters we know.


JMO,

Alla




From catlady at wicca.net  Sun Dec  7 19:44:49 2008
From: catlady at wicca.net (Catlady (Rita Prince Winston))
Date: Sun, 07 Dec 2008 19:44:49 -0000
Subject: Hagrid/vet/tin foil/Gray Lady/Dumbledore, Dumbledore, Dumbledore
Message-ID: <ghh93h+m06p@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 185109

Jerri wrote in
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/185065>:

<< I didn't want Hagrid to die, but all his near death experiences
just didn't work for me in the context of this book. >>

This is a forbidden "I agree" post.

Geoff wrote in
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/185075>:

<< Now that's a bit I missed in the books - that Harry spent some of
his time dealing with the effect of the war on cats and dogs and other
four-legged friends. :-)) >>

Cats: Crookshanks. Minerva. Dogs: Fluffy. Padfoot. Other four-legged
friends: Firenze. I imagine that the same medi-wizards and healers
care for other animals as care for humans.

Don't Brits say 'vet' as short for 'veteran'? I confess, as a child, I
confused the words 'veteran' and 'veterinarian' and thought that
holiday in November was Veterinarian's Day -- the one that was renamed
from Armistice Day, but you Brits renamed it differently than we
Americans.

Alla wrote in
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/185091>:

<< (I know you said full foil tin on, but I do not know what that word
means) >>

Lizzyben already explained that 'tin foil hat' refers to conspiracy
nuts, but a detail is it started with a crazy person who always wore a
tin foil helmet, and told the psychiatrist that it was to block radio
waves with which his enemies were trying to control his brain, and I
believe for a while it just meant 'crazy' before being specialized to
'crazy conspiracy theorist'.

Parantap wrote in
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/185072>:

<< Looks like gray lady is a better candidate for slith house ghost ..
too much ambition with too limited ability (very much like Draco) >>

I believe there is a rule that the House Ghost must have been a
student in that House when alive; I believe JKR even said so in an
interview, but I'm too lazy to look it up.

I don't know the date of Helena's birth relative to the founding of
Hogwarts; she could have been old and experienced enough to be one of
the teachers of the first class, or she might not have been born until
the school was a well-established habit. I prefer to believe the
latter, and that she was a student in Ravenclaw House. It could have
been before Godric invented the Sorting Hat, while the Founders were
choosing their own students themselves, and of course Rowena chose her
daughter to be in her House. 

I don't think ambition was more than one percent of her motivation for
stealing the tiara. I think she was motivated by one of the normal,
eternal family conflicts, and more interested in bringing her mother
down a peg than bringing herself up. As I've never noticed Slythies
being more motivated by ambition than are Gryffies, Puffs, and Claws,
that wouldn't prevent her from being a Slythie, but I think Helena was
in the right House, because what she valued was cleverness. Insofar as
she acted on ambition by stealing the tiara, her ambition was being
the smartest. 

This is a opportunity for me to repeat yet again my annoyance that
Rowena and Rowling didn't give Rowena's daughter an alliterative name,
like Rebecca or Rosamund or Regina.

Alla wrote in
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/185052>:

<< But that begs another question for me, leaving the morality of that
act out, I wonder how does that work? How does Dumbledore know that
this is what is going to happen at the end of the year and that is
where Sirius will die? >>

Wellll, let's say ... one way or another he knows (by spies,
LegilimenCy, logic, divination, whatever) that Voldemort is determined
to lure Harry to the Department of Mysteries to hand down the Prophecy
Orb. He, not knowing that he is a character in a novel, doesn't know
that it will happen at end of term, but he knows it will happen
sometime, especially because he does things to encourage it, like
assigning SNAPE to teach Occlumency. 

He knows that if LV's away party screws up, LV will come himself to do
the job. So he plans to trap LV into revealing himself to Fudge by
having his own team ready to defend Harry and cause the DE team to
screw up. Harry serves as bait in this plan, just as a fake vision of
Sirius served as bait in LV's plan after true visions of the Prophecy
Orb failed as bait.

So if he wanted Harry to witness 'Voldemort' killing Sirius, that
battle would be the perfect opportunity to make it happen. But I don't
think DD did it with his own wand: was DD even in the Ministry
building yet when Sirius died? I think if Sirius was killed by his own
side, it was Lupin's wand (Pippin gathered the evidemce with the
intention of supporting her ESE!Lupin theory). And I *insist* on
believing La Gatta Lucianese's version, that DD had gotten both Sirius
and Remus to agree to this.

However, I don't believe that Rowling had any conscious intention that
Sirius's death was anything but a normal battle casualty or that
Dumbledore was a spider.

Lizzyben wrote in
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/185085>:

<< It's sort of funny to me how in OOTP, DD carfully reins in the
Death Eaters, while seeming to be willing to toss the lives of his own
followers to the wind. >>

If the good guys go to heaven when they die and the bad guys go to
hell, then the good guys dying is not such a bad thing (interrupting
myself, surely you know the old joke in which the pollster asks the
widow where she thinks her late husband is now, and she answers: "He's
in Heaven enjoying eternal bliss with Jesus, but I don't like to talk
about such unpleasant things"), but compassion tries to keep bad guys
alive long enough to urge them to repent.

<< I would argue that DD meets at least two of those criteria. Canon
shows us an enormous disregard for human life (Seven Potters plan,
letting Draco roam free, letting Quirrell/LV roam free, letting
Basiliks roam free, etc. etc.) DD's emotion does blind him to what he
is doing, in that he seems unable to recognize how much of his hurtful
actions are due to his own emotional damage. And I wouldn't really
count on JKR's moral compass, which continues to confuse & confound me.

And I could actually like DD as a character. But what disturbs *me* is
that JKR never comes clean about the extent of DD's machinations. She
now says that he's a Machievelli, and that "he's been pulling a lot of
strings." *wink, wink, nudge, nudge*. But she never tells readers the
full truth. I'd be OK if DD came totally clean in DH, confessed all &
then was forgiven by Harry. But JKR seems to want readers to forgive &
love him w/o even knowing all that he's done. It's sort of like DD's
secret w/JKR. And even still, many readers will call DD the epitome of
goodness, or "benevolent" - while referring to a man possibly
responsible for the deaths of many innocent people. >>

Well, y'know, in a novel, the author does evil things to the
characters. It was the author who killed Harry's parents and Sirius
and Mrs Weasley's son and Teddy's parents. It was the author who made
the Dursleys be stupid bullies and then hit them on the head with mead
glasses. It was the author who made Merope Gaunt a pathetic creature
with an obsessive infatuation. It was the author who made Tom M.
Riddle a psychopath who only feels comfortable while murdering people,
which is a cruel thing to do to him as well as to his victims. And it
is the author who knows a lot more about what's going on that she
doesn't tell the characters -- or the readers.

The characters only ever had very limited free will, because the
author overrides it for the sake of the plot and for the sake of set
pieces and even for the sake of a joke. By the time the book is
published, the characters' destinies (at least for the length if the
book) are determined and unalterable. Every time you re-read OoP, it
ends the same way.

I haven't read any Rowling interviews for a while so I don't know what
she has said in the last year or so about DD being her self-insertion.
In the old days, all I heard of her saying was that he was her
mouthpiece for giving information to the reader. 

The readers may question why things happened in the plot the way they
did, like "having so many unlikely coincidences is implausible". That
DD is a big schemer who set up the apparent coincidences is an excuse
that can be given to the reader. As far as he schemed and manipulated,
the author made him scheme and manipulate. And I feel that some
readers attribute some things to DD's schemes that were intended to be
coincidences caused by Fate, which is another stand-in for the author.
Who may feel a bit guilty herself for what she did to the characters.

I'm not sure how to make a graceful transition from speaking of the
author to speaking of The Author, but authors have difficulties when
they make a character symbolize God. And there are parts of the series
where Dumbledore *does* symbolize God, as when the characteristic of
good guys is they have faith in DD and follow his teachings even when
they seem most defeated. And the parts where his plans result in good
people dying at bad times. And other times DD is depicted as a human
being, fallible by definition, which is at best inconsistent. Worse
than inconsistency is that readers see him as consistent by seeing him
as a human being of great power who, as the saying goes, 'thinks he's
God'. 

Pippin wrote in
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/185107>:

<< Dumbledore knows that Quirrell has been corrupted. He can also
guess that Voldemort is nearby and is inhabiting a feeble body which
needs unicorn blood to sustain it. However, there's no reason to
suspect that it's Quirrell, who merely looks pale and unhappy -- not
an unusual state for Voldemort's minions. >>

What about his Legilimency?






From sherriola at gmail.com  Sun Dec  7 21:11:20 2008
From: sherriola at gmail.com (Sherry Gomes)
Date: Sun, 7 Dec 2008 13:11:20 -0800
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Dumbledore the Manipulator WAS :Re: Sirius and Snape parallels again
In-Reply-To: <ghh71b+32po@eGroups.com>
References: <ghf9qa+gf83@eGroups.com> <ghh71b+32po@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <006601c958b0$5b0655c0$4001a8c0@Pensieve>

No: HPFGUIDX 185110

Pippin:
Anyway, I still don't get the scenario where Sirius doesn't want his godson
to share his values. Harry couldn't possibly respect anyone who was that
much of a hypocrite. And neither would I. 

"I believe that people should die to protect their friends, but I don't want
you to do it " -- that's not saying I love you. It's either saying my values
are okay for me but not for you, or else that my friends were worth dying
for but yours aren't. I think Sirius would have been risking a punch in the
nose if he'd tried that one. And he'd have earned it.



Sherry:
I don't think it would have been hypocritical for Sirius to try to protect
Harry and to keep him from sacrificing himself.  I think it would have been
parental and normal.  A parent may throw himself or herself in front of a
speeding car to keep their child from getting hit, but they would not want
that child, even as an adult, to do the same for them.  I think Sirius would
have been willing to die for his friends, and I think he would have been
willing to die to keep Harry from doing the same thing.  The Sirius in GOF
acted like a parental figure, in my opinion, trying to keep Harry from
risking himself.  The Sirius in OOTP was completely different.  harry might
still go off and die to rid the world of Voldemort, but Sirius wouldn't be
human, or shall we say, wouldn't have been acting parental if you like, if
he'd just stood back and said ok, go for it kiddo, without a protest,
without trying to find some other way, and without wanting to beat the hell
out of both Dumbledore and Voldemort.  Even Harry, in DH chapter 34, is
somewhat relieved not to see Ron and Hermione, because he doesn't want to
argue with them about what he must do.  

Sherry




From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk  Sun Dec  7 23:37:56 2008
From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister)
Date: Sun, 07 Dec 2008 23:37:56 -0000
Subject: vet
In-Reply-To: <ghh93h+m06p@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ghhmok+qjhd@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 185111

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Catlady (Rita Prince Winston)" <catlady at ...> 
wrote:

> Geoff wrote in
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/185075>:
> 
> << Now that's a bit I missed in the books - that Harry spent some of
> his time dealing with the effect of the war on cats and dogs and other
> four-legged friends. :-)) >>

Catlady: 
> Don't Brits say 'vet' as short for 'veteran'? I confess, as a child, I
> confused the words 'veteran' and 'veterinarian' and thought that
> holiday in November was Veterinarian's Day -- the one that was renamed
> from Armistice Day, but you Brits renamed it differently than we
> Americans.

Geoff:
k12listmomma emailed me off-group about ny comment.

This is what I wrote in reply:
'No, that's the point. We only use "veterans" and, even here, we don't use the
word as much as you do in North America.

We don't even use the word "veterinarian". Here, in the UK, we go to the vets
or the veterinary surgery and we see the vet. The short forms are used probably
95% of the time.

So, for me as a UK English speaker, your use of the word vet raised a slight
chuckle because I don't recall seeing a US writer use "vet" before rather than
the full "veteran".'






From juli17 at aol.com  Mon Dec  8 00:04:48 2008
From: juli17 at aol.com (julie)
Date: Mon, 08 Dec 2008 00:04:48 -0000
Subject: Dumbledore the Manipulator WAS :Re: Sirius and Snape parallels again
In-Reply-To: <ghh870+s52o@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ghhob0+aj1c@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 185112


> > Pippin:
> > If he didn't feel it was the right thing to do, his guilt would 
show
> > itself. I don't see any signs of that. He has that big guilty 
moment
> > in HBP, but we're not told who it's for. So it's probably for
> > everyone, everyone  he couldn't save, I think. 
> 
> Alla:
> 
> The last moment I see of Snape when he hears about Dumbledore's 
plan 
> is pig for slaughter. I do not see anything to the contrary, him 
> expressing that this is such a cool idea. His guilt does not show, 
> neither does his hearty approval. I believe that this means that he 
> felt it was a wrong thing to do, but he would do so since it was 
> Dumbledore's orders and he always followed them.
> 

Julie:
I don't think it's just a question of what is the right
or wrong thing to do, nor of simply following orders. Fact
is, what could Snape do to change anything? Voldemort has
always been determined to find and kill Harry, and there is
no way Snape can stop a confrontation between Harry and
Voldemort (even if Snape could hide Harry indefinitely, 
Harry is hardly going to go with Snape willingly). True,
Snape had always assumed Harry at least had some chance
of survival, but even knowing Harry apparently has no chance
doesn't give Snape any viable alternative options.

Well, I suppose he has one option--to tell Harry everything
Dumbledore has told him. But what would be the point when
it won't change Harry's fate? Nor would such foreknowledge
be of any help to Harry, more likely it would be a burden.
I think that's how Snape would see it, whether he withholds
the truth for Harry's sake, or for the sake of winning the
war, or both.

And while Harry may have been Snape's primary concern (due
to his promise to Lily), I think Snape did have a secondary
goal of destroying Voldemort. Voldemort is the one who 
actually killed Lily, after all. I also think Snape has 
change during the time he's worked for Dumbledore and
against Voldemort. At the beginning he didn't care about
anyone's fate except Lily's. By the time he and Dumbledore
are discussing Harry's grim fate Snape has become someone
who "saves those he can", as he later saves Lupin. He doesn't
have to like those he saves, and he certainly doesn't like
Lupin, but he saves them because it is the right thing to
do. And I believe he accepts Dumbledore's "plan" not only
because Harry's confrontation and ultimate death has become
all but unavoidable, but also because it is the better of
two unpleasant future options--Voldemort killing Harry 
and taking over the WW, or the two killing each other and
the WW being free of Voldemort (and Harry dies either way).
> 
> 
> > Alla:
> >  How about Dumbledore doing  some brainstorming and trying to 
figure
> > out whether Horcrux can be  taken out of alive Harry? How about
> > Dumbledore involving Harry in it?
> > 
> > Pippin:
> > 
> > Right, DD needs a Manhattan Project -- get all the best minds in
> > wizarding together and they can make a lot of horcruxes to 
> experiment
> > with. You do see some ethical problems with that, I hope? 
> <SNIP>
> 
> Alla:
> 
> Um, with your scenario sure, however that was not mine. I was 
talking 
> about book research, not horcrux making. I thought it was obvious 
> that I would not expect Dumbledore to do real life demonstration, 
lol.
> 
> 
> 

Julie:
I recall in one of JKR's interviews she said Dumbledore
had no close confidante. I also recall we discussed at the
time why McGonagall, or even Snape (as Dumbledore trusted
him so completely), wasn't that confidante. I believe the 
consensus was that no one was of Dumbledore's stature
as a wizard, thus he bore the burden of decision-making
alone, and I originally assumed Dumbledore was protecting
others from that "burden," and willingly taking any guilt
for failure upon himself.

Now I think Dumbledore wasn't protecting others so much 
as he apparently viewed them as incapable in comparison
to himself. Granted, the fewer people who know critical
information, the less likely that information is to end up
compromised. But I do think Dumbledore could have shared
more than he did, and earlier than he did. Those working
for him deserve the courtesy of being given all knowledge
that reasonably would protect them. Snape should have known
the facts about the true ownership of the Elder wand, for
instance. 

And maybe by "brainstorming" about certain tactics, others
would have come up with better options at various junctures.
Dumbledore bemoaned his bad decisions and errors in judgment,
and admitted at least in words that he is as fallible as the
next person (or more so, since his mistakes are "bigger"). 
Yet with someone(s) to use as a sounding board, to bounce
ideas off and refine or rework questionable strategies, there 
would have been fewer and smaller mistakes, IMO. 

Dumbledore was always trying to do the right thing for the
most benefit to Wizarding society, but he couldn't see that
figuring out the right thing can't--or shouldn't--be the purview
of a single person, no matter how "great" or wise that person
may be.

Julie 




From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Mon Dec  8 01:35:19 2008
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Mon, 08 Dec 2008 01:35:19 -0000
Subject: CHAPDISC: DH35, KING'S CROSS
Message-ID: <ghhtkn+j0r3@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 185113

This message is a Special Notice for all members of

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups

In addition to being published onlist (available in webview), this
post is also being delivered offlist to email in boxes) to those
whose "Message Delivery" is set to "Special Notices." If this is
problematic or if you have any questions, contact the List Elves at
(minus that extra space)

HPforGrownups-owner @yahoogroups.com
---------------------------------------------------


Zara, thank you so so much for your help. You are amazing. :)

Chapter Discussion: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Chapter
35, KING CROSS


Harry wakes up in a strange place. At first he does not understand 
what is happening to him, then slowly he realizes that he must exist 
and that he must be more than a thought because he is definitely 
lying down on some sort of surface. His senses are slowly awakening, 
he is not sure whether he is in that place by himself or not. Harry 
also realizes that he is naked and it does not bother him at all. He 
realizes that he has eyes because he can see. Harry also realizes 
that he does not need glasses. Then Harry hears pitiful noises. Harry 
feels as if he encountered something shameful and for the first time 
wishes that he were clothed. As soon as wish forms in his head, robes 
appear. Harry's surroundings seem to invent themselves right in front 
of his eyes: a glass roof in the sunlight, and a wall. Harry wonders 
if he is in some sort of strange room of requirement. Then Harry sees 
something that looks like a strange baby with flayed skin under a 
table, which is the source of the noises. Harry is afraid of the 
creature; he knows that he ought to comfort him, but it repulses him.

Dumbledore appears, smiling, his hand fully healed. His first words 
to Harry are that he cannot help the creature. Then Dumbledore 
cheerfully greets Harry, calls him a wonderful boy, a brave man and 
leads him to two seats that Harry had not previously noticed.

Harry asks whether Dumbledore is dead and gets affirmative answer. He 
gets a negative answer to the question of whether he is dead. With 
Dumbledore's help, Harry realizes that letting Voldemort kill him 
made all the difference in the matter of Harry's survival.

Harry and Dumbledore have a long conversation where all the mysteries 
of the series are touched on in one way or another, in ways readers 
may find satisfying to various degrees.

We learn that Albus guessed that Harry would live and is delighted 
that he was right. We learn that Harry was a Horcrux that Lord 
Voldemort never meant to make, and that when Harry let Voldemort kill 
him, that piece of Voldemort's soul died, and now Harry's soul is 
clean and completely his own.

Albus reveals his entire tragic family history. We learn that after 
three muggle boys attacked her, Ariana became very ill and was having 
uncontrollable outbursts of magic when she was upset. We hear that 
Dumbledore's father was put in Azkaban for going after those muggle 
boys and that Kendra, Dumbledore's mother, moved the family to 
another town to care for Ariana away from prying eyes. A few years 
later, Kendra died accidentally, as a result of an outburst of 
Ariana's. This forced Dumbledore to come back from his studies to 
care for his younger brother and sister. Per his own admission 
Dumbledore resented that he must take time away from his studies and 
care for his siblings and that his brilliance may suffer. 

When Grindelwald became one of his neighbors Dumbledore, infatuated 
with his brilliance, plotted with him to being about Wizard 
domination over Muggles, for "the Greater Good".  Albus and 
Grindelwald planned a trip together to seek the Hallows, until 
Aberforth confronted them with questions about how Albus is planning 
to manage the care of his ill sister. This confrontation became a 
duel between the three of them, and Ariana was caught in the 
crossfire, so to speak, and ended up dead. Grindelwald fled and Albus 
was left to bury his sister and carry his guilt, shame, and grief 
forever. Apparently he waited several years to confront Grindelwald 
and defeat him.

The Hallows and Elder Wand are discussed during this conversation as 
well. Albus apologizes for sending Harry on a wild goose chase after 
Hallows, as he had feared Harry might, like him, succumb to their 
allure. Albus praises Harry as a person who is more worthy than him 
and worthy to unite the Hallows.

Albus also attempts to explain his plans regarding the Elder Wand. He 
does not succeed for this reader.

Harry must now decide whether he should board the train and go on or 
go back and make sure Voldemort is defeated. He decides to go back.

The end



1.	How many nods to Greek philosophers you can find in this 
chapter?

2.    Is the action in this chapter happens in Harry's head or some 
other place?               
        Explain why or why not.

3.    Where do you think Dumbledore spends his days now?

4.	The theme of the hero given a choice whether to rest or to go 
back and possibly be hurt more or prevail over the enemy is fairly 
common in the fantasy genre. When Harry makes his decision to go back 
did you feel at any time that he is going back to die for real now? 
Explain why or why not.

5.	"Of house elves and children's tales, of love, loyalty and 
innocence, Voldemort knows and understands nothing. Nothing. That 
they all have a power beyond his own, a power beyond the reach of any 
magic, is a truth he had never grasped". I think that this quote 
pretty much sums up one of the major themes in the series. Do you 
agree or disagree? Explain why or why not.

6.	List discussed the injured baby under the table extensively 
in the past, but if you want to please discuss some more here.

7.	Can somebody explain to me one more time what was 
Dumbledore's rationale in sending Harry on Hallows Quest?

8.	"If you planned your death with Snape, you meant him to end 
up with  the Elder Wand, didn't you?
"I admit that was my intention," said Dumbledore, "but it did not 
work as I    intended, did it?
"No," said Harry, That bit didn't work out"

What do you think Harry meant by his question? What do you think 
Albus' actual plan was?

9.	Why do you think chapter was named "King's cross"?

10.	Please add your own question here.



NOTE: For more information on HPfGU's chapter discussions, please
see "HPfGU DH Chapter Discussions" at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/database

Next up will be Chapter 36 (The flaw in the plan), from David, on or
around December 22, 2008.








From zgirnius at yahoo.com  Mon Dec  8 04:01:46 2008
From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara)
Date: Mon, 08 Dec 2008 04:01:46 -0000
Subject: CHAPDISC: DH35, KING'S CROSS
In-Reply-To: <ghhtkn+j0r3@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ghi67a+ug17@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 185114

> Alla: 
> Zara, thank you so so much for your help. You are amazing. :)

Zara:
*blushes*

> 1.	How many nods to Greek philosophers you can find in this 
> chapter?

Zara:
Gosh, homework! Now I will hve to dig out my copy of DH and try to 
thoink back to freshman year of college, lo these 26 (!!) years ago.

> 2.    Is the action in this chapter happens in Harry's head or some 
> other place?               
>         Explain why or why not.

Zara:
In my opinion, this cannot definitively be established from the text. 
It could be that Harry is unconscious and is having a brief 
hallucination or similar in his head, in which "Dumbledore" is just 
Harry helping himself think through everything he already knows and 
suspects. Or, Harry is having a near-death experience and his "soul" 
has arrived on the threshhold of ther afterlife, where he convereses 
with Albus, who is of course, dead, so can conceivably have access 
tyo such a place. Making the former an option seems to me respectful 
to persons who do not believe in an afterlife, or who have strongly 
felt beliefs of what an afertlife must be like which might be 
contradicted by detail sof Rowling;s artistic vision.

My preferred reading (despite falling into the category of non-
belivers) is that the "place" is the taking off point to the 
Potterverse afterlife. For me, personally, it is more satisfying for 
this to be a real dialogue between Harry and Albus, because there is 
so much I feel Albus should have said to Harry at some point.

On the other hand, the artistic choice also forces what to me remains 
the biggest hole in the story. We do not know what, if anything, 
SNape and Albus ever said to one another regarding the Elder 
Wand/Dumbledore's wand. (To me it is irritating to be still asking 
such a question of myself about two major characters and the magical 
artifact that mediated the final vctory in the principal copnflict of 
the series). Harry, of course, would have no way of knowing. He knows 
no more and no less about the interactions of Albus and Severus than 
I do, and based ont hat knowledge (and a great deal more time and 
effort, I suspect) I am not able to decide. So if I were given that 
answer here, I suppose I would have been foreced to concede that this 
*is* provably not just Harry talking to himslef.

> 3.    Where do you think Dumbledore spends his days now?

Zara:
Visiting with his family minus the yet living Aberforth, Gellert, and 
whatever others of his loved ones are deceased. (Yeah, I figure if 
the afterlife is fair and at all similar to the various Judeo-
Christian ideas of it I have encountered in my day, Gellert has a lot 
to pay for, but I figure time must somehow work differently. And I 
read canon as saying Gellert did come to feel remorse for his crimes).
 
> 4. When Harry makes his decision to go back 
> did you feel at any time that he is going back to die for real now? 
> Explain why or why not.

Zara:
I never doubted Harry would live to marry Ginny, produce lots of 
little Potters, and enjoy a long happy life visiting with his best 
friends Ron and Hermione Weasley. It always seemed that sort of 
story, and Rowling's apparent love for Harry was such that I could 
not conceive the woman would ever kill him, his beloved, or his best 
friends, off. Put him through the wringer, sure, but he'd get his 
happily ever after in the end.

> 7.	Can somebody explain to me one more time what was 
> Dumbledore's rationale in sending Harry on Hallows Quest?

Zara:
He wanted Harry to know what the Resurrection Stone was - he hoped 
that Harry would figure out the riddle of the Snitch and use the 
Stone to help him when the time came for him to die. He did not 
simply tell Harry what it was and give it to him, because he feared 
Harry would misuse it, to Harry's own detriment, if he knew of it in 
advance of that moment.

It seems that Albus never intended Harry to have the Elder Wand. 
Nonetheless, that Harry knew what it was and learned its history 
proved useful, as Albus's plans for that Hallow went awry and 
knowledge of the wand proved necessary to Harry. Whether Albus 
considered this possibility or not, the Hallows quest thus also 
proved a useful contingency backup to the original plan. It also 
provided Harry with some information about his family's history to 
which Albus doubtless felt Harry was entitled. (That he was the heir 
of one of the Peverell brothers, and the cloak was an heirloom of his 
family).





From leahstill at hotmail.com  Mon Dec  8 08:13:03 2008
From: leahstill at hotmail.com (littleleahstill)
Date: Mon, 08 Dec 2008 08:13:03 -0000
Subject: Dumbledore the Manipulator WAS :Re: Sirius and Snape parallels again
In-Reply-To: <ghhob0+aj1c@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ghikuf+r5h7@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 185115

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "julie" <juli17 at ...> wrote:
>
> 
> > > Pippin:
> > > If he didn't feel it was the right thing to do, his guilt 
would 
> show
> > > itself. I don't see any signs of that. He has that big guilty 
> moment
> > > in HBP, but we're not told who it's for. So it's probably for
> > > everyone, everyone  he couldn't save, I think. 
> > 
> > Alla:
> > 
> > The last moment I see of Snape when he hears about Dumbledore's 
> plan 
> > is pig for slaughter. I do not see anything to the contrary, him 
> > expressing that this is such a cool idea. His guilt does not 
show, 
> > neither does his hearty approval. I believe that this means that 
he 
> > felt it was a wrong thing to do, but he would do so since it was 
> > Dumbledore's orders and he always followed them.
> > 
> 
> Julie:
> I don't think it's just a question of what is the right
> or wrong thing to do, nor of simply following orders. Fact
> is, what could Snape do to change anything? <snip> 

> And while Harry may have been Snape's primary concern (due
> to his promise to Lily), I think Snape did have a secondary
> goal of destroying Voldemort. Voldemort is the one who 
> actually killed Lily, after all. I also think Snape has 
> change during the time he's worked for Dumbledore and
> against Voldemort. At the beginning he didn't care about
> anyone's fate except Lily's. By the time he and Dumbledore
> are discussing Harry's grim fate Snape has become someone
> who "saves those he can", as he later saves Lupin. He doesn't
> have to like those he saves, and he certainly doesn't like
> Lupin, but he saves them because it is the right thing to
> do. And I believe he accepts Dumbledore's "plan" not only
> because Harry's confrontation and ultimate death has become
> all but unavoidable, but also because it is the better of
> two unpleasant future options--Voldemort killing Harry 
> and taking over the WW, or the two killing each other and
> the WW being free of Voldemort (and Harry dies either way).

Leah: There's also the point that whatever Snape did in the first 
Voldemort war (and he seems mainly to have been intended as a spy), 
during the second Voldemort war he appears to be in Voldemort's 
inner circle, and certainly by DH, he's literally Voldemort's right 
hand man. So he gets to see Voldemort and his actions first hand and 
in depth.  That seems to be another reason why he might see 
defeating Voldemort as ultimately more important than saving Harry 
from death.

So, returning to the original point we were discussing, even knowing 
what he does about Voldemort and his intentions, Snape's initial 
reaction to Harry being raised 'as a pig for slaughter' is 
repugnance (Snape doesn't know about Harry's chances for survival). 
Ultimately, though Snape seems to decide Voldemort's defeat is the 
most important thing, and he carries on with Dumbledore's plan 
despite his initial repugnance.

Sirius has fought against Voldemort, but he hasn't had up close and 
personal experience of what Voldemort ruling truly entails.  Unlike 
Snape, he does have up close and personal experience of loving 
Harry. That's why if Sirius heard that 'the boy must die' he is 
going to have a great deal more trouble in overcoming his repugnance 
and cause a great deal of trouble meanwhile. 


Leah




From happyjoeysmiley at yahoo.com  Mon Dec  8 09:54:21 2008
From: happyjoeysmiley at yahoo.com (happyjoeysmiley)
Date: Mon, 08 Dec 2008 09:54:21 -0000
Subject: CHAPDISC: DH35, KING'S CROSS
In-Reply-To: <ghhtkn+j0r3@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ghiqsd+hf7q@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 185116

>4. The theme of the hero given a choice whether to rest or to go
back and possibly be hurt more or prevail over the enemy is fairly
common in the fantasy genre. When Harry makes his decision to go back
did you feel at any time that he is going back to die for real now?
Explain why or why not.

I didn't think Harry is going back to die for real. This chapter 
gave me hope that Harry will now go on to live. I thought "So, my 
friend didn't lie to me about the happy-ending part after all." :-)

>5. "Of house elves and children's tales, of love, loyalty and
innocence, Voldemort knows and understands nothing. Nothing. That
they all have a power beyond his own, a power beyond the reach of any
magic, is a truth he had never grasped". I think that this quote
pretty much sums up one of the major themes in the series. Do you
agree or disagree? Explain why or why not.

One of the major themes in the series, definitely yes. As to why I 
think so, well, okay:

* House elves: Kreacher beat Voldemort with respect to the magic 
Voldemort had performed in the cave where hid the locket Horcrux. 
Dobby helped Harry and co escape from Malfoy Manor right under 
Bellatrix's nose.

* Children's tales: Voldemort didn't even *know* about Hallows and 
anyway he was wrongly attracted to the worst Hallow of the lot 
(against the moral of the tale). He had read so much so as to find 
out where CoS was and how to make Horcruxes but he didn't learn from 
a seemingly simple tale with a simple (yet powerful) moral.

* Love: Lily's love for Harry protected Harry. Something Voldemort 
didn't even care to think about and he finally conceded so much so 
that he got a bit of that protection for himself (in GoF)!

* Loyalty: Harry's loyalty to those who were fighting for him and 
vice-versa finally protected them all from Voldemort's spells. 

* Innocence: I remember Voldemort going for unicorn's blood now; one 
who kills a unicorn would reap the consequences *because* a unicorn 
is pure and harmless (innocent in other words). Voldemort chose to 
ignore this warning yet again.

All these were powers beyond the reach of Voldemort's
magic ? they brought about his downfall in one way or another. JKR 
made it this way to tally with the theme that every being possesses 
unique strengths and is worthy of respect and that one should treat 
every another being with respect and love, IMO. 

>6. List discussed the injured baby under the table extensively in 
the past, but if you want to please discuss some more here.

I remember feeling very uncomfortable and slightly pained by the 
cries it gave out while I read the chapter for the first time. As 
for now, taking a leaf out of Lavender Brown's book when she first 
encounters Blast-ended Skrewts, I would just say "Eurgh," I suppose. 
LOL. :-)

Cheers,
~Joey, who thanks Alla for the nice summary and questions




From montavilla47 at yahoo.com  Mon Dec  8 16:15:49 2008
From: montavilla47 at yahoo.com (montavilla47)
Date: Mon, 08 Dec 2008 16:15:49 -0000
Subject: CHAPDISC: DH35, KING'S CROSS
In-Reply-To: <ghhtkn+j0r3@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ghjh7l+nr6c@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 185117

Excellent summary, Alla!  Thanks!

> 1.	How many nods to Greek philosophers you can find in this 
> chapter?

Couldn't tell you.  It's all Greek to me. :)
 
> 2.    Is the action in this chapter happens in Harry's head or some 
> other place?               
>         Explain why or why not.

Nitwit.  Oddment.  Tweak.  (What's the other one?)  Anyway, I don't
think it was in Harry's head.  If we can have ghosts, not-exactly 
ghosts, and voices beyond a veil, then there's no reason that
there can't be an actual way station to eternity after-death.  

> 3.    Where do you think Dumbledore spends his days now?

In that train station (although it may not be a train station for him).
I think he didn't turn up in when Harry used the stone because he
--somewhat like Headless Nick--has not been able to move on to
that next great adventure.

> 4.	The theme of the hero given a choice whether to rest or to go 
> back and possibly be hurt more or prevail over the enemy is fairly 
> common in the fantasy genre. When Harry makes his decision to go back 
> did you feel at any time that he is going back to die for real now? 
> Explain why or why not.

Nope.  He's a hero and the heroes seldom die in these stories.  The
only time I remember being faked out (and it was only for about 
five seconds) about a hero dying was when the author spent most of 
the book showing the hero resolutely *trying* to kill himself.

> 5.	"Of house elves and children's tales, of love, loyalty and 
> innocence, Voldemort knows and understands nothing. Nothing. That 
> they all have a power beyond his own, a power beyond the reach of any 
> magic, is a truth he had never grasped". I think that this quote 
> pretty much sums up one of the major themes in the series. Do you 
> agree or disagree? Explain why or why not.

I agree, but an earlier poster explained it much better than I could.

> 6.	List discussed the injured baby under the table extensively 
> in the past, but if you want to please discuss some more here.

Only to say that I found that part extremely distressing.  But I'm 
finding out--slowly, it seems--that other people don't have my
disbelief in eternal punishment.  (I *don't* believe that Sysiphus is
still pushing that rock up the hill.)

> 7.	Can somebody explain to me one more time what was 
> Dumbledore's rationale in sending Harry on Hallows Quest?

Nope.  Maybe Dumbledore thought it would be bad luck if 
Harry were too focused and managed to get rid of the Horcruxes
before the Spring Term drew to an end.  It's the years of 
Headmastering that taught him that you don't want the 
students tearing through the school curriculum too fast.

> 8.	"If you planned your death with Snape, you meant him to end 
> up with  the Elder Wand, didn't you?
> "I admit that was my intention," said Dumbledore, "but it did not 
> work as I    intended, did it?
> "No," said Harry, That bit didn't work out"
> 
> What do you think Harry meant by his question? What do you think 
> Albus' actual plan was?

It's horribly confusing.   According to what Dumbledore says here,
it sounds like he intended Snape to have mastery of the Elder
Wand, which would indeed demonstrate great trust and faith in 
Snape's character.  It would mean that Dumbledore thought Snape
could handle the wand, and it mean rewarding him for his years of 
service by helping Snape to become the great and powerful wizard
Snape longed to be.

And, as a back-up plan, it would have been pretty good, since, if
Harry failed  to destroy all the Horcruxes before getting killed (and
if he wasn't resurrected), Snape would be armed with the best wand
in the world, have access to the Horcrux information through 
Dumbledore, might be able to deduce their locations from his own
knowledge of Voldemort, and thus be in a good position to finish
up the task.

But, if we listen to Harry's words while battling Voldemort, then
the plan was for the power of the Elder Wand to be ended because
Snape wouldn't really have "defeated" Dumbledore.  In which case,
Snape would be rewarded for his years of service with a dead stick.

Gee, thanks.  


> 9.	Why do you think chapter was named "King's cross"?

Well, it's an obvious reference to the train station.  But it's 
also an oblique reference to the Christian cross, and Harry's
role as a Christ-figure in the story.

> 10.	Please add your own question here.

Just a comment:  Although (as I'm sure you're all aware), my 
capacity to be annoyed is limitless, I did like this chapter on the
whole.  I find the baby disturbing and I really don't agree with JKR's
vision of Voldemort, but I like that she put it in there to be disturbing.

And, though I find Dumbledore as annoying as he ever was in any of
the books (the end of OotP comes to mind), I glad that he wasn't nicer
or better.  I don't need everything tied up with neat little ribbons--and
that Dumbledore admitted that Harry was a much better person is a 
very good touch.  Harry was a better person than Dumbledore.  So were
a lot of other people.

Montavilla47

Thanks again for the questions!




From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Mon Dec  8 16:45:42 2008
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Mon, 08 Dec 2008 16:45:42 -0000
Subject: Sirius and Snape parallels again - Sirius' death (LONG)  Posted by: "jkoney6
In-Reply-To: <d1b.308be2ac.366c972e@aol.com>
Message-ID: <ghjivm+jga5@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 185118


Julie wrote:
> That is the method of manipulation, isn't it? Setting the pieces  up
in the most attractive way, appealing to your subject's weaknesses
(Harry's desire to save people, Snape's desire to atone to Lily, etc),
and then watching while they succumb to your bait. They don't HAVE to
do it, you aren't FORCING  them, but if it is deliberate and in
service to your ultimate goal, then it is manipulation, whether it is
for good or bad. And no one was better at it than Dumbledore, though
almost every other character had their moments ("The way you get into
the Whomping Willow is..."). 

Carol responds:

Funny, even before I read that last sentence, I thought of Sirius
Black tempting Severus Snape with the bait of what he would see if he
got past the Whomping Willow, manipulating another person through his
weaknesses for his own ends (in sirius's case, amusement at Severus's
terror and humiliation--not to mention indifference to any harm that
might come to him, including death. Yes, Sirius was sixteen years old,
but he, too, was manipulating someone to do something dangerous to
that person for his own ends. If we condemn Dumbledore for
manipulating people, we should also condemn Sirius, with the only
ameliorating factor being Sirius's immaturity. Of course, it's not
quite as bad as Diary!Tom baiting a trap for Harry with Ginny, cut
only because Diary!Tom intended to murder Harry himself with the
Basilisk as his weapon rather than exposing the tempted person to the
risk of death at another's hand (or teeth).

Carol, who doesn't know what to think of JKR's "good" characters any more






From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Mon Dec  8 16:53:44 2008
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Mon, 08 Dec 2008 16:53:44 -0000
Subject: Sirius and Snape parallels again - Sirius' death (LONG)  Posted by: "jkoney6
In-Reply-To: <ghjivm+jga5@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ghjjeo+sjqj@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 185119

> Carol responds:
> 
> Funny, even before I read that last sentence, I thought of Sirius
> Black tempting Severus Snape with the bait of what he would see if 
he
> got past the Whomping Willow, manipulating another person through 
his
> weaknesses for his own ends (in sirius's case, amusement at 
Severus's
> terror and humiliation--not to mention indifference to any harm that
> might come to him, including death. Yes, Sirius was sixteen years 
old,
> but he, too, was manipulating someone to do something dangerous to
> that person for his own ends. If we condemn Dumbledore for
> manipulating people, we should also condemn Sirius, with the only
> ameliorating factor being Sirius's immaturity. Of course, it's not
> quite as bad as Diary!Tom baiting a trap for Harry with Ginny, cut
> only because Diary!Tom intended to murder Harry himself with the
> Basilisk as his weapon rather than exposing the tempted person to 
the
> risk of death at another's hand (or teeth).
> 
> Carol, who doesn't know what to think of JKR's "good" characters 
any more
>


Alla:

Funny I did too thought of that argument lol. However just as I do 
not condemn Dumbledore for manipulating Harry into sacrificing 
himself, by the same token I do not condemn Sirius for doing what he 
did to Snape. 

I think Harry chose it all on his own, just as Snape did.

Of course I disagree that if we condemn Dumbledore, we **should** 
condemn Sirius. I really really do not have to apply what I think of 
one character to another, especially if I do not think that the 
analogy is exact.

However the reason I am replying is that I indeed see SOME analogy in 
Dumbledore giving Harry the information and Sirius giving the 
information to Snape. But I totally think they both chose on their 
own.

The part where I absolutely blame Dumbledore is what he did to Harry 
before, without showing him that sometimes  living is harder than 
dying. Sigh.

JMO,

Alla




From foxmoth at qnet.com  Mon Dec  8 17:05:25 2008
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Mon, 08 Dec 2008 17:05:25 -0000
Subject: Dumbledore the Manipulator WAS :Re: Sirius and Snape parallels again
In-Reply-To: <ghh870+s52o@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ghjk4l+jjet@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 185120

 
> Alla:
> 
> True, however, my main point was that they did try even if did not 
> come out well.

Pippin:
I'm not sure what you mean by 'trying'. Yes, they would have liked to
find some other way, but they accepted that there wasn't time. They
didn't demand that Ron pause the game while they thought it over. 


> Alla:
> 
> The last moment I see of Snape when he hears about Dumbledore's plan 
> is pig for slaughter. I do not see anything to the contrary, him 
> expressing that this is such a cool idea. His guilt does not show, 
> neither does his hearty approval. I believe that this means that he 
> felt it was a wrong thing to do, but he would do so since it was 
> Dumbledore's orders and he always followed them.

Pippn:
Snape's last words that appear in the story are, "Don't worry
Dumbledore, I have a plan." He was not just blindly following orders
but actively and creatively finding ways to aid Harry's mission, which
he knew would eventually end in Harry's sacrifice. I don't think he
could do that if felt guilty about it.

> 
> > Pippin:
> > 
> > Right, DD needs a Manhattan Project -- get all the best minds in
> > wizarding together and they can make a lot of horcruxes to 
> experiment with. You do see some ethical problems with that, I hope? 
> <SNIP>
> 
> Alla:
> 
> Um, with your scenario sure, however that was not mine. I was
talking  about book research, not horcrux making. I thought it was
obvious  that I would not expect Dumbledore to do real life
demonstration, lol.

Pippin:
I thought it was obvious that a real life demonstration is necessary
at some point -- solving the problem on paper will not help Harry at
all, lol.  

Anyway the answer would only be in  a book if someone had previously
discovered it.  Wizards  used precious objects for their horcruxes so
that people would be reluctant to destroy them. That means previous
horcrux destroyers will have thought long and hard about other ways to
get rid of the things, and if they had succeeded someone would know
about it. 

But you know it always comes down to having to destroy the precious
object in the end. 

Pippin




From watsola79 at yahoo.com  Mon Dec  8 17:10:54 2008
From: watsola79 at yahoo.com (whydoibother79)
Date: Mon, 08 Dec 2008 17:10:54 -0000
Subject: CHAPDISC: DH35, KING'S CROSS
In-Reply-To: <ghjh7l+nr6c@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ghjkeu+eppc@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 185121

"Nitwit. Oddment. Tweak. (What's the other one?)"

I wouldn't swear to it, but I think it was *Blubber*




From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Mon Dec  8 17:40:11 2008
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Mon, 08 Dec 2008 17:40:11 -0000
Subject: CHAPDISC: DH35, KING'S CROSS/ SPOILERS for Master and Margarita
In-Reply-To: <ghhtkn+j0r3@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ghjm5r+m1vv@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 185122

3. Where do you think Dumbledore spends his days now?

Alla:

I thought I will answer this and the next one with my own thoughts 
basically to clarify couple particular points that I had in mind when 
I wrote the questions.

So, despite my mostly unpleasant feelings about Dumbledore I really 
do not think that he is in a bad place now based on author's 
intentions at least. But I sort of wanted to explore possible 
distinctions between good place and very good place and whether 
people would think that Dumbledore would deserve one and not another. 
Please read on and hopefully the previous sentence will make more 
sense. I wonder if anybody on the list (besides Russian speakers that 
is, I am sure they did heh) have ever read the novel called "Master 
and Margarita' by Russian author Michail Bulgakov. It is a story  
about what was happening in the Moscow during the 30s years of the 
twentieth century, it is a story about great love, it is a story 
about a Satan who looks so so much nicer in comparison to some people 
who serve the regime. Oh and another story is a story about Christ, 
which Master writes and of course all stories are beautifully woven 
together and IMO end up very satisfyingly. However, here is a thing, 
at the end of the novel both Master and Margarita die in bodies, but 
their souls get to live and receive their reward. But heaven would 
not take Master, the messenger of Heaven basically says that they did 
not deserve Light, but they deserve peace. Master and Margarita get 
to spend eternity in the nice cottage where Master can write in the 
candlelight, etc, but he is apparently not deserving enough to go on 
to see the Light.

Now, do not ask me what his offense was, I do not know, and I mean 
his reward is not a punishment, definitely not. However, it does not 
appear to me to be whatever counts for heaven either.

So to go back to Potterverse, Zara mentions that Dumbledore in her 
view is visiting with the family, etc, and I think I agree, however, 
I wonder if he is considered as deserving to go on whatever counts as 
heaven in Potterverse if anything.


4. The theme of the hero given a choice whether to rest or to go
back and possibly be hurt more or prevail over the enemy is fairly
common in the fantasy genre. When Harry makes his decision to go back
did you feel at any time that he is going back to die for real now?
Explain why or why not.


Alla:

I thought I will answer this one as well to bring another book that I 
had in mind that to me shows that in the situations like that heroes 
do not always get their happily ever after. Anybody read "The last 
Herald Mage" by Mercedes Lackey? Main character also gets a choice 
and goes back to defeat the evil pretty much knowing that he will die 
and  he is not even getting his after life happily ever after with 
his beloved till several centuries later.
I mean as I mentioned before I read spoilers, but even then I did not 
feel totally safe that Harry will survive.





From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Mon Dec  8 18:15:21 2008
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Mon, 08 Dec 2008 18:15:21 -0000
Subject: Dumbledore the Manipulator WAS :Re: Sirius and Snape parallels again
In-Reply-To: <ghh870+s52o@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ghjo7p+m1mt@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 185123

Alla wrote:
> 
> The last moment I see of Snape when he hears about Dumbledore's plan
is pig for slaughter. I do not see anything to the contrary, him 
expressing that this is such a cool idea. His guilt does not show, 
neither does his hearty approval. I believe that this means that he
felt it was a wrong thing to do, but he would do so since it was 
Dumbledore's orders and he always followed them.

Carol responds:

Once Snape knows that Harry has a soul bit in him and that Dumbledore
has been withholding that information from him, he has essentially
three choices: Go along with Dumbledore's plan, including informing
Harry at the right time; find a way to tell Harry now, before he
(Snape) is forced to kill DD, that Harry has a soul bit in his head;
or do nothing. setting aside the Unbreakable Vow, which would probably
kill him if he did nothing, what is Snape supposed to do? His whole
job, until the time comes for him to kill DD, protect the students,
help Harry secretly, and eventually tell Harry about the soul bit, is
to pretend to be loyal to Voldemort and find out information about
him, meanwhile feeding him what seems to be valuable information and
fulfilling his duties as DADA teacher. Snape can't blow his cover;
he'll only get himself killed and accomplish nothing. He can't kill LV
himself; he knows that LV has to face Harry so the sould bit can be
destroyed. He's not about to switch sides, and no one else has any
kind of plan that will work. He can't confide what Dumbledore has told
him to McGonagall or anyone else. I really don't see what else Snape
is supposed to do except what he's doing, most important to inform
Harry before Harry confronts Voldemort--which he'll do with or without
the knowledge Snape can give him--that he has a soul bit in his scar.
>From there, it's up to Harry. If Harry *doesn't* know about the soul
bit and simply tries to kill Voldemort, sure, Harry will survive, but
so will the soul bit. (Snape doesn't know about the Love magic that
will be triggered by Harry's self-sacrifice; all he knows is that
Harry has to die to destroy the soul bit, and he, Snape, is the only
one, after DD is dead, who can pass on this info to Harry.

The only other possibility is for DD to tell Harry himself before
Snape is forced to kill him, but he seems to have rejected that
option. But from the moment Dumbledore knew that Harry had a soul bit
in his head, he had no choice but to groom Harry to face Voldemort at
some point. which would have happened anyway, given Voldemort's
knowledge of the partial prophecy. It would be wrong to teach him
nothing and just let things happen; it would be worse to let LV's
followers whild Harry was a small child just to be rid of a soul bit.
The only other option is to protect and teach Harry, telling him about
the soul bit when the time comes. I see no good way to deal with such
a situation, but surely, training Harry for an inevitable
confrontation (and teaching him about the Horcruxes) is the least of
the three evils.

Carol, who is, again, no fan of Dumbledore's but sees no other option
for him with regard to Harry




From foxmoth at qnet.com  Mon Dec  8 19:16:21 2008
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Mon, 08 Dec 2008 19:16:21 -0000
Subject: CHAPDISC: DH35, KING'S CROSS
In-Reply-To: <ghhtkn+j0r3@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ghjrq5+sp4r@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 185124

 
> 1.	How many nods to Greek philosophers you can find in this 
> chapter?

Pippin:
No idea, but it's obvious that you have...so tell!

> 
> 2.    Is the action in this chapter happens in Harry's head or some 
> other place?                      Explain why or why not.

Pippin:
I think it's both, and I like that it's ambiguous. You can see
Dumbledore as Harry's superego and the baby as his id, or you can view
it more literally as an afterlife experience. 

> 3.    Where do you think Dumbledore spends his days now?

Pippin:
I think, based on the 'treasure in heaven' quote, that in the books
you take into the next world only those parts of yourself that you
cherished in this one. So wherever he is, I think Dumbledore has 
books, and family, and great minds to consult with and young minds to
inspire, and warm socks :) He is still struggling with pride, but he
doesn't have the desire for power or ambition that became a burden to
him. 

However, JKR shows us that power and ambition are not all bad. Without
them one may lose the desire to do evil, but Dumbledore has also lost
the desire to help, and Harry loses it as the chapter goes on,
realizing he can get it back only by returning to life. 

> 
> 4.	The theme of the hero given a choice whether to rest or to go 
> back and possibly be hurt more or prevail over the enemy is fairly 
> common in the fantasy genre. When Harry makes his decision to go back 
> did you feel at any time that he is going back to die for real now? 
> Explain why or why not.

Pippin:
I was pretty sure he was going to live when he decided to go back. It
wouldn't have made much sense to have him decide to live and then die
anyway. 
> 

> 5.	"Of house elves and children's tales, of love, loyalty and 
> innocence, Voldemort knows and understands nothing. Nothing. That 
> they all have a power beyond his own, a power beyond the reach of
any  magic, is a truth he had never grasped". I think that this quote 
> pretty much sums up one of the major themes in the series. Do you 
> agree or disagree? Explain why or why not.

Pippin:
Yes, I think it shows that Voldemort's idea of power is very narrow
and limited.

> 
> 6.	List discussed the injured baby under the table extensively 
> in the past, but if you want to please discuss some more here.

Pippin:
It was clearly meant to be disturbing, and I thought it made a good
counterpoint to the (superficially) soothing epilogue. I don't know
whether Voldemort's punishment is eternal or not, but I have no
problem with it being beyond the capacity of Harry or Dumbledore to
help him. Like Gandalf, it is no longer their task to put things to
rights. 
 
> 7.	Can somebody explain to me one more time what was 
> Dumbledore's rationale in sending Harry on Hallows Quest?

Pippin:
Dumbledore wanted Harry to have the comfort that the Resurrection
Stone could provide, but he feared that it, like the Mirror of Erised,
had the power to lure people to their deaths. So he made sure that
Harry would learn of its power, but would not be able to possess it
until he had already realized that he must die.

He also needed some backup in case his plans for the Elder Wand
failed, but again, he wanted Harry to understand its dangers before
attempting to possess or use it. 

> 
> 8.	"If you planned your death with Snape, you meant him to end 
> up with  the Elder Wand, didn't you?
> "I admit that was my intention," said Dumbledore, "but it did not 
> work as I    intended, did it?
> "No," said Harry, That bit didn't work out"
> 
> What do you think Harry meant by his question? What do you think 
> Albus' actual plan was?

Pippin:
Harry is confirming here that Draco definitely wasn't supposed to
become master of the wand. 

I think that the plan was two-fold. If the Elder Wand was deprived of
its power, it would be like the ruined diary --  no longer
recognizable in any way as what it had been.  It would appear to be a
wand that had worn out with age, like its former master, and no one,
even Ollivander, would think that it was the Elder Wand, whose power
had passed through generations undiminished. Voldemort would conclude
that Gregorovitch and Grindelwald had been mistaken and he would
continue his quest.

If, on the other hand, Dumbledore had miscalculated and the wand
retained its power, he trusted Snape as its new guardian -- one who
could be trusted not to use its powers, and who would have both the
cunning and the skill at occlumency to conceal it from Voldemort. 

This is all a little clearer after reading ToBtB -- honestly, I think
Rowling had most of this figured out, but didn't want it in the books
because she didn't think most readers would be such wand geeks. She
thinks the story's about important stuff, as you mentioned in Question
5. Little did she know...

Pippin




From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Mon Dec  8 19:44:01 2008
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Mon, 08 Dec 2008 19:44:01 -0000
Subject: CHAPDISC: DH35, KING'S CROSS
In-Reply-To: <ghjrq5+sp4r@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ghjte1+a6sk@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 185125

Alla:
> > 1.	How many nods to Greek philosophers you can find in this 
> > chapter?
> 
> Pippin:
> No idea, but it's obvious that you have...so tell!


Alla:

Well, I think that for now I should say that I would like to change 
Greeks in my question to any philosophers, because one of those which I 
think is applicable was definitely not Greek.

I saw two, I mean maybe people won't see it at all, but I would like to 
wait before I share mine and maybe people saw more.




From zgirnius at yahoo.com  Mon Dec  8 21:18:23 2008
From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara)
Date: Mon, 08 Dec 2008 21:18:23 -0000
Subject: CHAPDISC: DH35, KING'S CROSS
In-Reply-To: <ghjh7l+nr6c@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ghk2uv+ll35@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 185126


> > 1.	How many nods to Greek philosophers you can find in this 
> > chapter?

> montavilla47:
> Couldn't tell you.  It's all Greek to me. :)

Zara:
LOL.

I could not find one either, perhaps owing to my relative lack of 
education in Ancient Greek philosophy. I found a reference to 
Descartes' famous "I think, therefore I am" in Harry's thought in the 
early going that he can now consider that he exists as more than 
disembodied thought. 

I also found in Dumbledore's final statement a flavor of Kant's 
distinction between noumena and phenomena. Noumena being things known 
to the mind/imagination, rather than the senses, as opposed to 
phenomena, which are the things we perceive through our senses. These 
are Greek words, but if they were used in this sense in the Classical 
world, I am not familiar with the originator.

> > 6.	List discussed the injured baby under the table extensively 
> > in the past, but if you want to please discuss some more here.

> montavilla 47:
> Only to say that I found that part extremely distressing.  But I'm 
> finding out--slowly, it seems--that other people don't have my
> disbelief in eternal punishment.  (I *don't* believe that Sysiphus 
is
> still pushing that rock up the hill.)

Zara:
I did not take the meaning of the baby to be that there is 
necessarily eternal damnation or eternal punishment in the 
Potterverse. But rather, that others cannot influence the disposition 
of another's soul if that other refuses entirely to allow such 
influence. 

As Albus says to Harry in this chapter: "Do not pity the dead, Harry. 
Pity the living, and, above all, those who live without love."

The "above all", in my opinion, being a reference to Voldemort, the 
pitiful state of whose soul I believe the baby symbolizes.

Who knows? Maybe Voldemort will someday try something other than what 
he's tried for his entire life, and it will *work* for him. But until 
he does, yes, he'll be stuck and there is nothing that Harry, or 
Albus, or anyone can do for him.

> > 8.	"If you planned your death with Snape, you meant him to end 
> > up with  the Elder Wand, didn't you?
> > "I admit that was my intention," said Dumbledore, "but it did not 
> > work as I    intended, did it?
> > "No," said Harry, That bit didn't work out"
> > 
> > What do you think Harry meant by his question? What do you think 
> > Albus' actual plan was?

> montavilla47:
> But, if we listen to Harry's words while battling Voldemort, then
> the plan was for the power of the Elder Wand to be ended because
> Snape wouldn't really have "defeated" Dumbledore.  In which case,
> Snape would be rewarded for his years of service with a dead stick.

Zara:
I wonder whether we are supposed to think this, or whether we are 
supposed to think this is a case of the pupil bettering the master. I 
presume Harry meant by his question the same thing he explained to 
Voldemort (and later Albus's portrait) in the following chapter, 
about ending the power of the wand. But it is possible that Albus, 
while alive, did not understand that this was a possible or likely 
outcome of his plan, and *he* answered Harry in the positive because 
he meant the plan you outlined and I snipped (Snape to be a worthy 
successor to Albus as a custodian/master of the wand who would not 
use it to kill, etc.)

At any rate, in the second event obviously the wand would not be 
intended as a reward to Snape for his services, LOL. It would simply 
be using Snape yet again (in this case seemingly without his 
knowledge) as Snape had agreed to allow himself to be used - to 
protect Harry. It seems undesirable to have Harry survive the de-
Horcruxing and then have to face a Voldemort armed with a fully 
responsive Elder Wand, I suppose.

> Pippin:
> I think that the plan was two-fold. If the Elder Wand was deprived
> of its power, it would be like the ruined diary -- no longer
> recognizable in any way as what it had been. It would appear to be 
> a wand that had worn out with age, like its former master, and no 
> one, even Ollivander, would think that it was the Elder Wand, whose
> power had passed through generations undiminished. Voldemort would 
> conclude that Gregorovitch and Grindelwald had been mistaken and he
> would continue his quest.

Zara.
I *like* this! A lot. It's probably the most sensible version of the 
plan I have come across. 

> Pippin:
> If, on the other hand, Dumbledore had miscalculated and the wand
> retained its power, he trusted Snape as its new guardian -- one who
> could be trusted not to use its powers, and who would have both the
> cunning and the skill at occlumency to conceal it from Voldemort. 

Zara:
When do you suppose Snape was supposed to learn of this? Snape would 
need to possess the wand in order to assess which of the two options 
had transpired, and in order to hide the wand in the event Case B 
transpired. As things actually happened, we cannot determine whether 
or not Snape knew to grab the wand, because the wand was not 
available for him to grab - Draco had sent it over the battlements.

It seems to me most logical that he ought to have known in advance, 
so he would know to retrieve it. But then why did he not, at some 
point in DH? I suppose, trying to reason it out here, that perhaps 
the damage to the tomb could not be hidden? Snape could not use the 
wand anyway under the circumstances which actually pertained, so Plan 
C became to leave it in place for Voldemort to find and hopefully 
believe was his by right of seizure, so that at least it would not 
serve him any better than his current wand.

Or Albus did not ever tell Snape...did he plan to explain this after 
his own death, for security reasons? And then never bothered because 
it did not occur to him that Plan C and the plan for Snape to tell 
Harry the soul-bit secret might intersect undesirably?

> Pippin:
> This is all a little clearer after reading ToBtB -- honestly, I
> think Rowling had most of this figured out, but didn't want it in 
> the books because she didn't think most readers would be such wand 
> geeks. 

Zara:
First, I would love your thoughts on how ToBtB influenced your 
reading of this bit of the story (though on a separately named 
thread, of course!).

I would also just like to add, that I could hardly care less how wand 
mechanics operate, whether it is consistent, etc., and this is not 
remotely my interest in the matter. What Dumbledore planned and why 
is important to me in deciding what I think of his character. And 
this Elder Wand/Snape killing him business is one I cannot make my 
mind up about.




From jkoney65 at yahoo.com  Tue Dec  9 00:04:11 2008
From: jkoney65 at yahoo.com (jkoney65)
Date: Tue, 09 Dec 2008 00:04:11 -0000
Subject: Sirius and Snape parallels again - Sirius' death (LONG)  Posted by: "jkoney65"
In-Reply-To: <d1b.308be2ac.366c972e@aol.com>
Message-ID: <ghkclr+pukn@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 185127

> Julie:
> My problem is that Dumbledore is supposed to be the greatest--and  
presumably
> the wisest--wizard alive. He's supposed to be perceptive about 
people. He  is 
> a
> Legilimens (not sure if this is directly stated, but one presumes 
he has  
> some 
> talent at it). Yet we are supposed to believe he is truly unable 
to  
> recognize the
> dangers the string of idiots who teach DADA each year bring to 
Hogwarts  and
> to Harry (the personality-altered Quirrel, the conceited and inept  
Lockhart, 
> the
> wishy-washy Lupin--sorry but he was protecting a Sirius he still 
had reason  
> to
> believe was a killer, the impersonator of one of his closest 
friends--who  
> also 
> happened to be mad!). And if it seems unbelievable that Dumbledore  
wouldn't
> see something amiss and take some proactive steps to protect 
Harry,  then we
> have to assume that he is being deliberately obtuse and oblivious, 
willing  
> if not
> actually pressuring Harry to face all these dangers on his own.   
(And I do 
> know
> Dumbledore sometimes does step in to help--Fawkes, at the MoM--but 
even  he
> isn't always able to do so--Shrieking Shack, the Graveyard.)
>  
> Of the two, I have great difficulty seeing Dumbledore as completely 
stupid  or
> unaware. It's unbelievable to me that he is really unable to figure 
out  that 
> his
> friend Moody isn't his friend Moody. What is more believable for a 
man of 
> Dumbledore's age, experience and intelligence is that he doesn't 
WANT  to 
> look too closely, that he deliberately ignores the signs, that he 
prefers  to 
> take a position of non-interference and allow matters to "take 
their  course."
> I can even understand the concept of allowing Harry to face these 
growing 
> dangers--accepting the chance that if he is incapable or not the 
chosen  boy
> of the prophecy, then he'll die early and allow Dumbledore time to  
come up
> with another plan to save the Wizarding World--against the hope 
that  Harry
> will learn via "trial by fire" and will ultimately  defeat 
Voldemort. 
> Dumbledore's
> own words about the unexpected emergence of concern for  Harry's 
welfare
> complicating his plans supports this scenario. He planned to be a  
distant,
> uncaring general, sacrificing his individual soldiers in battle so  
that he 
> might
> ultimately win the war. It just didn't work out that way with 
Harry, though  
> it
> did with everyone else including Snape, Sirius, Lupin, and the 
occasional  
> student
> in the crossfire (Cedric). I'm sure Dumbledore felt a moment of  
sadness at 
> each
> of their deaths, but he deliberately avoided caring too much about 
any of 
> them--except Harry, inadvertently--as to avoid any personal 
anguish  over 
> their
> deaths.
>  
> In some ways, I think Dumbledore was quite a coward. And perhaps 
what he 
> said to Snape ("Sometimes I think we sort too early") applied as 
much to 
> himself as anyone. Methinks he should have been a Ravenclaw (meaning
> no disrespect to that house, as cold, clear logic is an asset in a 
war  
> leader).

jkoney
Dumbledore did suspect something wasn't right with Quirrel. He told 
Snape to keep an eye on him. I believe it is more than possible that 
Voldemort was able to protect Quirrel from any attempt at legilimens. 
If Dumbledore didn't try, I would bet that Snape tried, especially 
while he was confronting him.

Everyone including Dumbledore knew Lockhart was a fraud. 
Unfortunately, he had no other choices to fill the position. So he 
ended up being stuck with a fraud in the position.

I think he recruited Lupin because he knew he would protect Harry 
from Sirius, the criminal. Apparently, Lupin did keep a look out for 
Sirius once he had the map. That is how he found them in the shack.

As for Moody, I also have a tough time with this. Moody was 
considered "mad" so the behavior of the imposter didn't seem that 
odd. There was also a tournament with other schools keeping 
Dumbledore busy.

What Dumbledore is fighting is a guerrilla war. You can't expect to 
fight any type of war without casualties. That doesn't mean the ones 
in charge don't care, they just can't let themselves be distracted 
from the ultimate goal of winning. Blaming him for people dying in 
war is unfair to him. If it was up to him there wouldn't be a war, 
but Voldemort won't let that happen.

Dumbledore a coward? How so? He came charging into the MoM and 
captured the DE's. He went after Harry and faced Voldemort in a duel, 
knowing he couldn't destroy Voldemort and win the war. As a leader he 
organized a resistance to Voldemort, when he knew the ministry was 
incapable of stopping him. He faced his own mortality quite well, 
asking Snape to kill him to further the plans for defeating Voldemort.


> 
> 
> jkoney
> DD took Harry away to protect him. Sirius  was the number one 
suspect. 
> He was supposed to be the secret keeper.  Getting Harry away from 
him 
> is logical.
> 
> The charges got cleared  because Voldemort and his people were 
seen, 
> some where captured and Sirius  was fighting against them. Of 
course 
> the minister is going to do  everything possible to put the best 
spin 
> on it and get back in DD &  Harry's good graces.
> 
> I still have a problem with the great manipulation  that DD did to 
> Harry. DD may have set the pieces up, but Harry made the  final 
> decision
> 
> Julie:
> That is the method of manipulation, isn't it? Setting the pieces  
up in the 
> most
> attractive way, appealing to your subject's weaknesses (Harry's 
desire to  
> save
> people, Snape's desire to atone to Lily, etc), and then watching 
while they 
> succumb to your bait. They don't HAVE to do it, you aren't FORCING  
them, 
> but if it is deliberate and in service to your ultimate goal, then 
it is  
> manipulation, 
> whether it is for good or bad. And no one was better at it than 
Dumbledore, 
> though almost every other character had their moments ("The way you 
get  into 
> the Whomping Willow is..."). 
>  
> Julie 
>

jkoney
I guess we are disagreeing on the term manipulation. I don't believe 
that you can make me do something I already want to do. You can try 
to use it to your benefit but to me that is different than outright 
manipulation. To me, that would be you convincing me to do something 
I don't already want to do.

There are always people willing to fight and die for a cause. That 
doesn't make the leaders manipulative if they send them out to fight.

JMO
jkoney






From jkoney65 at yahoo.com  Tue Dec  9 01:00:49 2008
From: jkoney65 at yahoo.com (jkoney65)
Date: Tue, 09 Dec 2008 01:00:49 -0000
Subject: CHAPDISC: DH35, KING'S CROSS
In-Reply-To: <ghhtkn+j0r3@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ghkg02+9qhm@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 185128

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" 
<dumbledore11214 at ...> wrote:
>
> This message is a Special Notice for all members of
> 
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups
> 
> In addition to being published onlist (available in webview), this
> post is also being delivered offlist to email in boxes) to those
> whose "Message Delivery" is set to "Special Notices." If this is
> problematic or if you have any questions, contact the List Elves at
> (minus that extra space)
> 
> HPforGrownups-owner @yahoogroups.com
> ---------------------------------------------------
> 
> 
> Zara, thank you so so much for your help. You are amazing. :)
> 
> Chapter Discussion: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Chapter
> 35, KING CROSS
> 
> 
> Harry wakes up in a strange place. At first he does not understand 
> what is happening to him, then slowly he realizes that he must 
exist 
> and that he must be more than a thought because he is definitely 
> lying down on some sort of surface. His senses are slowly 
awakening, 
> he is not sure whether he is in that place by himself or not. Harry 
> also realizes that he is naked and it does not bother him at all. 
He 
> realizes that he has eyes because he can see. Harry also realizes 
> that he does not need glasses. Then Harry hears pitiful noises. 
Harry 
> feels as if he encountered something shameful and for the first 
time 
> wishes that he were clothed. As soon as wish forms in his head, 
robes 
> appear. Harry's surroundings seem to invent themselves right in 
front 
> of his eyes: a glass roof in the sunlight, and a wall. Harry 
wonders 
> if he is in some sort of strange room of requirement. Then Harry 
sees 
> something that looks like a strange baby with flayed skin under a 
> table, which is the source of the noises. Harry is afraid of the 
> creature; he knows that he ought to comfort him, but it repulses 
him.
> 
> Dumbledore appears, smiling, his hand fully healed. His first words 
> to Harry are that he cannot help the creature. Then Dumbledore 
> cheerfully greets Harry, calls him a wonderful boy, a brave man and 
> leads him to two seats that Harry had not previously noticed.
> 
> Harry asks whether Dumbledore is dead and gets affirmative answer. 
He 
> gets a negative answer to the question of whether he is dead. With 
> Dumbledore's help, Harry realizes that letting Voldemort kill him 
> made all the difference in the matter of Harry's survival.
> 
> Harry and Dumbledore have a long conversation where all the 
mysteries 
> of the series are touched on in one way or another, in ways readers 
> may find satisfying to various degrees.
> 
> We learn that Albus guessed that Harry would live and is delighted 
> that he was right. We learn that Harry was a Horcrux that Lord 
> Voldemort never meant to make, and that when Harry let Voldemort 
kill 
> him, that piece of Voldemort's soul died, and now Harry's soul is 
> clean and completely his own.
> 
> Albus reveals his entire tragic family history. We learn that after 
> three muggle boys attacked her, Ariana became very ill and was 
having 
> uncontrollable outbursts of magic when she was upset. We hear that 
> Dumbledore's father was put in Azkaban for going after those muggle 
> boys and that Kendra, Dumbledore's mother, moved the family to 
> another town to care for Ariana away from prying eyes. A few years 
> later, Kendra died accidentally, as a result of an outburst of 
> Ariana's. This forced Dumbledore to come back from his studies to 
> care for his younger brother and sister. Per his own admission 
> Dumbledore resented that he must take time away from his studies 
and 
> care for his siblings and that his brilliance may suffer. 
> 
> When Grindelwald became one of his neighbors Dumbledore, infatuated 
> with his brilliance, plotted with him to being about Wizard 
> domination over Muggles, for "the Greater Good".  Albus and 
> Grindelwald planned a trip together to seek the Hallows, until 
> Aberforth confronted them with questions about how Albus is 
planning 
> to manage the care of his ill sister. This confrontation became a 
> duel between the three of them, and Ariana was caught in the 
> crossfire, so to speak, and ended up dead. Grindelwald fled and 
Albus 
> was left to bury his sister and carry his guilt, shame, and grief 
> forever. Apparently he waited several years to confront Grindelwald 
> and defeat him.
> 
> The Hallows and Elder Wand are discussed during this conversation 
as 
> well. Albus apologizes for sending Harry on a wild goose chase 
after 
> Hallows, as he had feared Harry might, like him, succumb to their 
> allure. Albus praises Harry as a person who is more worthy than him 
> and worthy to unite the Hallows.
> 
> Albus also attempts to explain his plans regarding the Elder Wand. 
He 
> does not succeed for this reader.
> 
> Harry must now decide whether he should board the train and go on 
or 
> go back and make sure Voldemort is defeated. He decides to go back.
> 
> The end
> 
> 
> 
> 1.	How many nods to Greek philosophers you can find in this 
> chapter?

The closest I got to Greek philosophers was a greek mythology class 
25+ years ago. So this is a bit beyond me. 

> 
> 2.    Is the action in this chapter happens in Harry's head or some 
> other place?               
>         Explain why or why not.

I think this is happening in some sort of afterlife. As someone else 
mentioned, if we have ghosts, voices beyond the veil, etc. this 
meeting of the living and the dead is reasonable.


> 
> 3.    Where do you think Dumbledore spends his days now?

In heaven, enjoying his time with loved ones and other pursuits of 
happiness.


> 
> 4.	The theme of the hero given a choice whether to rest or to go 
> back and possibly be hurt more or prevail over the enemy is fairly 
> common in the fantasy genre. When Harry makes his decision to go 
back 
> did you feel at any time that he is going back to die for real now? 
> Explain why or why not.

I wasn't sure at first, because dying while killing Voldemort would 
have been an awesome way to end the book. Although many people would 
have been unhappy with the hero dying. Once the HP phenomena got so 
big, I don't think she would have been able to kill him off whether 
it was in her original plans or not.



> 
> 5.	"Of house elves and children's tales, of love, loyalty and 
> innocence, Voldemort knows and understands nothing. Nothing. That 
> they all have a power beyond his own, a power beyond the reach of 
any 
> magic, is a truth he had never grasped". I think that this quote 
> pretty much sums up one of the major themes in the series. Do you 
> agree or disagree? Explain why or why not.

Others have answered this very well and there isn't much I can add to 
it.


> 
> 6.	List discussed the injured baby under the table extensively 
> in the past, but if you want to please discuss some more here.

I thought Zara said it best:
As Albus says to Harry in this chapter: "Do not pity the dead, Harry.
Pity the living, and, above all, those who live without love."

The "above all", in my opinion, being a reference to Voldemort, the
pitiful state of whose soul I believe the baby symbolizes.


> 
> 7.	Can somebody explain to me one more time what was 
> Dumbledore's rationale in sending Harry on Hallows Quest?

I think he wanted harry to know of the stone so that when the time 
came he could call upon it and gather the strength he needed to 
complete the walk to his "death."


> 
> 8.	"If you planned your death with Snape, you meant him to end 
> up with  the Elder Wand, didn't you?
> "I admit that was my intention," said Dumbledore, "but it did not 
> work as I    intended, did it?
> "No," said Harry, That bit didn't work out"
> 
> What do you think Harry meant by his question? What do you think 
> Albus' actual plan was?

I think he either hoped that the power of the wand would go away or 
if not, Snape would end up with it. Dumbledore trusted Snape enough 
to let him have the wand.

What DD wasn't expecting was for Voldemort to go looking for the wand 
of legend. While DD was alive, Voldemort wasn't looking for the wand. 
He was trying figure out why his wand performed so badly against 
Harry. It wasn't until after Malfoy's wand also was useless against 
Harry that he went looking for it. 

> 
> 9.	Why do you think chapter was named "King's cross"?

Well it looked like King's Cross station to Harry. Which is a nice 
metaphor for being in between places. You board the train to go 
somewhere. The symbolism of Harry being Christ-like by sacrificing 
himself also came to my mind.






From kaamita at yahoo.com  Tue Dec  9 03:16:28 2008
From: kaamita at yahoo.com (Heather Hadden)
Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2008 19:16:28 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: CHAPDISC: DH35, KING'S CROSS
In-Reply-To: <ghkg02+9qhm@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <699836.13602.qm@web56505.mail.re3.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 185129

> 6. List discussed the injured baby under the table extensively 
> in the past, but if you want to please discuss some more here.
?
Personally I feel that this "baby", this pitiful thing, is in fact the part of Voldemort's soul that had attached itself to Harry all those years ago. Since this is the place where Harry went to either die or live, his choice and that the soul bit had been with Harry for so long, it would make sense that the soul bit would show up there also. JMO
?
Heather


      

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Tue Dec  9 03:55:51 2008
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Tue, 09 Dec 2008 03:55:51 -0000
Subject: Philosophers in King's Cross WAS :Re: CHAPDISC: DH35, KING'S CROSS
In-Reply-To: <ghk2uv+ll35@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ghkq87+e37e@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 185130

> Zara:
> LOL.
> 
> I could not find one either, perhaps owing to my relative lack of 
> education in Ancient Greek philosophy. I found a reference to 
> Descartes' famous "I think, therefore I am" in Harry's thought in 
the 
> early going that he can now consider that he exists as more than 
> disembodied thought. 

Alla:

Right that is the not Greek one that I was thinking of of course.

Zara:
> I also found in Dumbledore's final statement a flavor of Kant's 
> distinction between noumena and phenomena. Noumena being things 
known 
> to the mind/imagination, rather than the senses, as opposed to 
> phenomena, which are the things we perceive through our senses. 
<SNIP>

Alla:

Too cool, no did not see that one at all. Okay, I was thinking about 
Plato's theory of forms, that whatever is materializing around Harry 
are those pure forms and everything in our material word are just 
shadows of it. Harry does think that maybe he is in some great Room 
ofrequirement, so I was thinking that maybe Hogwarts room of 
requirement is the imperferct shadow of this one.

I also want to say that I really did not mean to make this question 
hard. I was thinking about philosophy 101 for the most part and was 
just shooting for something different, for more or less not well 
discussed topic, you know?




 




From zanooda2 at yahoo.com  Tue Dec  9 05:18:44 2008
From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2)
Date: Tue, 09 Dec 2008 05:18:44 -0000
Subject: CHAPDISC: DH35, KING'S CROSS
In-Reply-To: <699836.13602.qm@web56505.mail.re3.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <ghkv3k+7jvv@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 185131

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Heather Hadden <kaamita at ...> 
wrote:

> Personally I feel that this "baby", this pitiful thing, is in fact 
> the part of Voldemort's soul that had attached itself to Harry all 
> those years ago. 


We used to discuss this after the book was out, and some people 
thought exactly like you, but some (me included) believed that 
the "baby" was the last one eighth part of LV's soul, the one that 
was left in him after all his soul-dividing and Horcrux-creating 
experiments :-). 

Since then, JKR confirmed this point of view on her website. Here is 
what she says about the "baby": "It is the last piece of soul 
Voldemort posesses. When Voldemort attacks Harry, they both fall 
temporarily unconscious, and both their souls - Harry's undamaged and 
healthy, Voldemort's stunted and maimed - appear in the limbo where 
Harry meets Dumbledore". You can find this answer in the FAQ section 
of the website. Hope I convinced you :-),


zanooda 




From foxmoth at qnet.com  Tue Dec  9 14:33:47 2008
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Tue, 09 Dec 2008 14:33:47 -0000
Subject: Sirius and Snape parallels again - Sirius' death (LONG)  Posted by: "jkoney65"
In-Reply-To: <ghkclr+pukn@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ghlvkb+m2rj@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 185132

 
> jkoney
> I guess we are disagreeing on the term manipulation. I don't believe 
> that you can make me do something I already want to do. You can try 
> to use it to your benefit but to me that is different than outright 
> manipulation. To me, that would be you convincing me to do something
 I don't already want to do.
> 
> There are always people willing to fight and die for a cause. That 
> doesn't make the leaders manipulative if they send them out to fight.
> 

Pippin:
Thanks for defining this issue so plainly. People do seem to be using
the word manipulation to mean any kind of indirect or emotional
persuasion, whereas I believe it applies only when the persuader is
being deceptive about his goal. 

For example, if I walk into a car dealership, I fully expect that the
salesmen will do all sorts of subtle things to make me feel good about
buying a car, and those things may have more to do with my decision
than any reasoned argument...but that's not manipulation in my book,
because they're not deceiving me about their motives.  

Similarly, if I joined the army, I'd be influenced to feel positively
about obeying lawful orders and putting myself in harm's way for my
country's service. Now if the leaders of the army were actually
working against my country, I'd have been manipulated. But if their
cause is the one I think I'm  fighting for, then  they've been very
effective leaders but not manipulative ones, IMO. 

Harry was manipulated in that he presumed he was being groomed to face
Voldemort because he had a right to do so.  He did not know it was
because he was already in mortal peril from the soul bit. But I don't
think he was manipulated to love the wizarding world, or his friends
or Hogwarts, or to be brave enough to die for them. 

Pippin





From foxmoth at qnet.com  Tue Dec  9 15:09:54 2008
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Tue, 09 Dec 2008 15:09:54 -0000
Subject: CHAPDISC: DH35, KING'S CROSS
In-Reply-To: <ghk2uv+ll35@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ghm1o2+m2pm@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 185133

 
> 
> Zara:
> When do you suppose Snape was supposed to learn of this? Snape would
need to possess the wand in order to assess which of the two options 
had transpired, and in order to hide the wand in the event Case B
transpired. As things actually happened, we cannot determine whether 
or not Snape knew to grab the wand, because the wand was not 
 available for him to grab - Draco had sent it over the battlements.

Pippin:

Since knowing about the Elder Wand is dangerous, Dumbledore would feel
justified in keeping as much information as possible to himself, as usual.

It's apparently  customary for the winner of a serious duel to claim
the loser's wand. Dumbledore wouldn't have to give the real reason for
Snape to understand that he was supposed to get the wand as part of
the charade, whether he was told to do so explicitly or not. 

The wand would either be powerless, in which case Snape would not need
to know anything, or it would still have power. Snape would naturally
attempt to break or burn the wand as is customary when a wizard dies,
but it seems the Elder Wand can not be broken, so he would fail. 
Snape would undoubtedly report such a curious circumstance to the
portrait, which would then be able to instruct him further. 
 
When the wand was lost, I think Portrait!Dumbledore assumed the matter
was out of his hands, literally. The EW has dropped out of sight many
times in the past, presumably because its  master was ignorant of its
abilities or else too wise to boast of them. Obviously, it had done so
once again, eluding DD's plans to make it powerless. So be it.

Portrait!Dumbledore could not easily search for the wand, nor could
Fugitive!Snape, and if Headmaster Snape called for a search of the
grounds, that would only draw attention to the fact that something
important was missing. 

DD probably assumed that if someone found an old wand on the grounds
they would either turn it in or keep it for a souvenir. I think the
one place Portrait!DD didn't expect the wand to turn up was inside his
tomb. Voldemort expected to find it there, but only because he didn't
know it had been lost. I suppose that Hagrid was the one to find it,
since only he could have placed it in the shroud before entombment,
but with all the people on the grounds, how likely was that? 

Pippin







From s_ings at yahoo.com  Tue Dec  9 16:25:16 2008
From: s_ings at yahoo.com (Sheryll Townsend)
Date: Tue, 09 Dec 2008 16:25:16 -0000
Subject: ADMIN: Tales of Beedle the Bard posts
Message-ID: <ghm65c+qtvr@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 185134

Tales of Beedle the Bard can be discussed on the Main list. Posts 
discussing this new work should adhere to the rules of the list and add 
something of substance to the discussion. Those of us who wish to squee 
about our newest addition to our library can start a party with 
likeminded members over at OTC.

We will ask everyone to use a TBB in the subject line and use a spoiler 
space in the messages themselves. Some of us may not have copies yet, 
some of us may have put this title on our holiday wishlist. We don't 
want to ruin the fun for folks who don't have their books yet. :)

The List Elves, briefly poking their heads out of their books!





From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net  Tue Dec  9 17:41:02 2008
From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman)
Date: Tue, 09 Dec 2008 17:41:02 -0000
Subject: CHAPDISC: DH35, KING'S CROSS
In-Reply-To: <ghhtkn+j0r3@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ghmaje+em2h@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 185135

<snip, snip, snippety-snip the summary> 

Alla:
> 4. The theme of the hero given a choice whether to rest or to go
> back and possibly be hurt more or prevail over the enemy is fairly
> common in the fantasy genre. When Harry makes his decision to go 
> back did you feel at any time that he is going back to die for real 
> now?  Explain why or why not. 

SSSusan:
No, I didn't, because: 1) JKR's favorite book as a kid was Elizabeth 
Goudge's The Little White Horse.  `nuff said re: sappy, happy 
endings; and 2)  I was just obnoxiously confident enough in my long-
held belief that Harry's willingness to sacrifice himself out of 
love, and his belief that he would need to do so, would somehow, 
magically, prove to be sufficient.


Alla:
> 5. "Of house elves and children's tales, of love, loyalty and
> innocence, Voldemort knows and understands nothing. Nothing. That
> they all have a power beyond his own, a power beyond the reach of 
> any magic, is a truth he had never grasped". I think that this quote
> pretty much sums up one of the major themes in the series. Do you
> agree or disagree? Explain why or why not.

SSSusan:
Absolutely.  Totally.  It's horrifically sad, but I believe it is 
so.  It takes us back to, WHY Voldemort? (Or Tom Riddle?)  WHY did he 
make all the wrong choices?  Was is inevitable for him to do so?  Or 
was it his fault?  IOW, was he wired that way, or was it all his 
fault due to his own conscious choices?  Whether he couldn't see all 
of this because he *wouldn't* believe it or because he was 
*incapable* of knowing it... who knows??  


Alla:
> 6. List discussed the injured baby under the table extensively
> in the past, but if you want to please discuss some more here.

Montavilla:
> Only to say that I found that part extremely distressing. But I'm
> finding out--slowly, it seems--that other people don't have my
> disbelief in eternal punishment. (I *don't* believe that Sysiphus is
> still pushing that rock up the hill.)

SSSusan:
Uncomfortable... distressing... squirmy... horrified... these are all 
words which could describe how I felt reading this section.  Ugh!  
I'm pretty much avoiding the entire question because I still have not 
adequately assessed my own response, nor the reasons for it.  (I've 
got some personal wrestling to do, I guess.)  I must say, though, 
that I think Montavilla nailed a part of it for me ? the fact that 
I'm not at all sure how I feel about the concept of eternal 
punishment, other than that I'm fairly disinclined to believe in it.  
Perhaps that is at the root of a lot of my discomfort.


Alla:
> 7. Can somebody explain to me one more time what was
> Dumbledore's rationale in sending Harry on Hallows Quest?

Montavilla:
> Nope. Maybe Dumbledore thought it would be bad luck if
> Harry were too focused and managed to get rid of the Horcruxes
> before the Spring Term drew to an end. It's the years of
> Headmastering that taught him that you don't want the
> students tearing through the school curriculum too fast.

SSSusan:
LOL.  That's one possibility.

I tend to think it was because DD wanted to do something that I 
always fault Snape for *not* doing as Harry's teacher; that is, DD 
wanted to make sure Harry UNDERSTOOD.  

Those Deathly Hallows were going to be out there to discover at some 
point in his life... Harry already possessed one and was given the 
2nd by DD... maybe DD thought that Harry needed to know about them, 
needed to be tempted by them as he had been, needed to prove to 
himself that he could avoid the lure and temptation of them in order 
to make the right choice about them?  

Yeah, so maybe it seems like a bit much to put on top of the search 
for the Hx, and maybe it wasn't necessary to have it occur 
simultaneously, but I have a feeling that for Harry to have had to 
endure the simultaneous search helped him to grow up, helped him to 
solidify his own beliefs, values and commitments.  In short, I think 
it was a perhaps-necessary part of what enabled him to face Voldy 
down in the forest again, with the sure knowledge that he was doing 
the right thing.

Siriusly Snapey Susan, emerging from lurkerdom








From kersberg at chello.nl  Tue Dec  9 19:30:25 2008
From: kersberg at chello.nl (kamion53)
Date: Tue, 09 Dec 2008 19:30:25 -0000
Subject: CHAPDISC: DH35, KING'S CROSS
In-Reply-To: <ghjh7l+nr6c@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ghmh0h+jrfq@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 185136

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "montavilla47" 
<montavilla47 at ...> wrote:
>
(snapperdisnip)
> And, as a back-up plan, it would have been pretty good, since, if
> Harry failed  to destroy all the Horcruxes before getting killed 
(and
> if he wasn't resurrected), Snape would be armed with the best wand
> in the world, 
(snapperdisnip)
> 
> Montavilla47
> 
> Thanks again for the questions!


Kamion writing:

when reading about Snape being to be rewarded with the Elderwand I 
realised this could possible hide an answer to a problem I had since 
Snape killed Dumbledore in Half Blood Prince.

I was still convinced Snape was one of the good guys, but could not 
figure out that kind of change he would have in the Post-Voldemortic 
Period. He would never earn recognisition for all the work he had 
done, but always be branded as the Murderer of Dumbledore.

Unless Dumbledore had intended the mastership of the Elder Wand as 
the way for Snape to become redeemed. It could be very well possible, 
that Dumbledore had no hope at all that Harry would survive the 
destruction of the last Horcrux - the one in his own head. Voldemort 
would be mortal again, but Dumbledore has emphasised several times 
that there is NO real return from the death. Once death = death for 
altimes.
No one would expect Snape, who despiced Harry, to revenge Harry 
Potter, but he would be at the moment of Voldemorts's Glory in the 
perfect position to do so, having the strongest wand in his 
possesion, standing in his trust at the right hand of the Dark Lord.

Harry would be the martyr, Snape would be the liberator.
Martyrs get glorious funerals, liberators the glorious rewards.

Is this construction too ruthless? 
Or too farfetched.





From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Tue Dec  9 19:38:15 2008
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Tue, 09 Dec 2008 19:38:15 -0000
Subject: Manipulation in Potterverse and in general /Tigana spoilers
In-Reply-To: <ghlvkb+m2rj@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ghmhf7+qni5@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 185137

> Pippin:
> Thanks for defining this issue so plainly. People do seem to be 
using
> the word manipulation to mean any kind of indirect or emotional
> persuasion, whereas I believe it applies only when the persuader is
> being deceptive about his goal. 
<SNIP>
> Harry was manipulated in that he presumed he was being groomed to 
face
> Voldemort because he had a right to do so.  He did not know it was
> because he was already in mortal peril from the soul bit. But I 
don't
> think he was manipulated to love the wizarding world, or his friends
> or Hogwarts, or to be brave enough to die for them. 
 
Alla:
Yes, we are definitely disagreeing on what the manipulation is then. 
While Wiki can be very crappy for in-depth research IMO, I often find 
to be very useful for initial definition. And their definition of 
social manipulation is pretty much what I am using.
"A means of gaining control or social influence over others by 
methods which might be considered unfair. Social advantage may be 
sought through either manipulative or persuasive rhetorical 
arguments. "
When I decide whether character or person is being manipulated, I do 
not care if manipulator wants the person to do what that person in 
essence would have done himself. I care about two things ? whether 
manipulator is in **control** of another person and whether the 
methods manipulator uses to make another person do staff is fair or 
not.

In Tigana prince Alessan enslaves wizard Erlein to secure his help in 
the battle against the villain. See to me it is completely irrelevant 
that Erlein is a decent guy and who IMO would have helped freedom 
fighters anyways if asked in a normal way. And does so at the end. 
What relevant to me is that Erlein was in the middle of his own 
business when he had a misfortune to meet Alessan and his gang and 
they tricked him, enslaved him and IMO even tortured him, when he 
tried escape the first night. I consider it a manipulation and worse 
and that is when Alessan to me goes completely down and never ever 
comes back up.  At the end Erlein is in control of his actions again 
and sure, when he chooses to help anyways ( God, I love this 
character more than any other in Tigana lol), he is not being 
manipulated, he is just to me being ten times better man than 
Alessan. So do I think he chose on his own? Yes, I think he did, 
however Alessan manipulated him into spending time with him and his 
gang IMO and forced him to follow them for quite some time. Therefore 
I am having a really hard time saying that it was not manipulation. 
Without being enslaved by Alessan Erlein would have never gotten to 
know those guys and never had the oportunity to make this choice in 
the first place IMO.

Anyways back to Potterverse, as I said I do think that Harry chose to 
follow Dumbledore's plan sacrificing him per se. I do think that was 
in him and that is partially why he was sorted in Gryffindor. 
However, I do think Harry was manipulated into doing so many things 
that he should not have been. Granted, we would have no stories 
without it, but again I think those are just two different angles to 
look at the story ? external and internal. Without what I consider to 
be Dumbledore's manipulation of Harry going after Stone, we would 
have no story. However if the characters were real people, I think 
Dumbledore would have deserved to be fired **on the spot**, period 
after the first book. Without Occlumency lessons we would have no 
OOP, but I have no doubt that Dumbledore manipulated Snape into 
giving them. What I am trying to say is that even though I know that 
Harry chose on his own, I think he was manipulated that he was put in 
the circumstances of having to choose if that makes sense.
And of course Harry was not manipulated into loving Hogwarts and his 
friends that I agree with.


JMO,

Alla





From eggplant107 at hotmail.com  Tue Dec  9 18:35:18 2008
From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107)
Date: Tue, 09 Dec 2008 18:35:18 -0000
Subject: Sirius and Snape parallels again.
In-Reply-To: <ghjivm+jga5@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ghmdp6+be09@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 185138

"Carol" <justcarol67 at ...> wrote:

> If we condemn Dumbledore for manipulating people

But I don't condemn Dumbledore for that. In general I think there is
nothing wrong with manipulating people; at this very instant you are
trying to manipulate me toward your point of view and I am trying to
manipulate you toward mine. It's what debate is all about and it's fun.

But of course trying to manipulate someone to do something that will
cause more harm than good is another matter entirely; but the evil in
that is in the end result of that manipulation, not in the manipulation itself.

> we should also condemn Sirius, with the only ameliorating factor
> being Sirius's immaturity.

That and perhaps also Snape's extreme unpleasantness. I'm not proud of
it, but I can see myself pulling something similar to the prank to a
git like Snape; but I can also see myself having second thoughts about
it and warning Snape about it. What can I say but I have my faults?

> Carol, who doesn't know what to think of JKR's "good" characters
> any more

I think it means even a good character is not a perfect character, and
good thing too because perfect characters are dull dull dull.

Eggplant








From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Tue Dec  9 23:01:20 2008
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Tue, 09 Dec 2008 23:01:20 -0000
Subject: CHAPDISC: DH35, KING'S CROSS
In-Reply-To: <ghhtkn+j0r3@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ghmtc0+8pum@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 185139

Chapter Discussion: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Chapter 35,
KING CROSS

<snip> 

> Albus also attempts to explain his plans regarding the Elder Wand.
He does not succeed for this reader.

Carol responds:
Nor for this one, but I wish you'd elaborated further, anyway! Great
summary otherwise, Alla.
> 
> 
> 1.	How many nods to Greek philosophers you can find in this 
> chapter?

Carol responds:

I must be really rusty, but I didn't see any. Are you thinking of
Plato's ideal forms?
> 
> 2.    Is the action in this chapter happens in Harry's head or some 
> other place? Explain why or why not.

Carol responds:
Yes and no. I think it's real in that he's really talking to the dead
Dumbledore and really seeing what will become of Voldemort's tattered
soul if they both die. I think that he really had the choice to wait
for a train and "go on." But I also think that Harry and Voldemort are
lying on the grass, breathing and unconscious, but their souls (not
the same as the life force--we know that in the WW, soul-sucked people
continue to move and breathe) have temporarily left their bodies and
entered, not the realm of the dead, but the place of waiting where
some Wizards choose to become ghosts and others choose to "go on."
Probably not all of them are met by a loved one or mentor (though I
like to think that Snape is met by Lily, actually looking into her
eyes as he wakes up). Had Harry chosen to "go on," Voldemort's soul
would have been trapped in that Limbo under the chair and once Nagini
was killed, he would have died. But since Harry chose to go back and
fight him, both of them are restored to consciousness when he returns.
(It's clear that their bodies have been lying very still under the
trees. Voldemort has been to all intents and purposes
unconscious--possibly the DEs can't tell whether he's alive or
dead--and Harry has to all appearances been dead. Clearly his chest
has not been rising and falling or the DEs would know that he wasn't
truly dead and would have AKd him themselves. Then, again, it's
inconceivable to them that hiLV's AK could fail.)
> 
> 3.    Where do you think Dumbledore spends his days now?

Carol responds:
Not in "King's Cross" with the mangled Voldie soul! He didn't know
where he was. Apparently, he was summoned to Harry by Harry's desire
for answers, just as the clothes appeared when he realized (like the
fallen Adam but without forfeiting whatever innocence he retains) that
he was naked. I suspect that he'll go looking for the newly dead
Grindelwald at some point, or for Snape. It's interesting that his
hand is healed (as is Harry's scar) and he's wearing brightly colored
robes, but he still has his glasses (as does James in "The forest
Again"), but Harry no longer needs his. There's no sense of time
passing, or at least, Harry seems confused about time. Maybe dead
Wizards can go back and forth in time and observe events in the living
world that they once inhabited without being part of that world? I
absolutely don't know the answer to your question--nor does JKR, who
took care not to show us what would happen if Harry went "on." But
Dumbledore seems content (now that the living Harry has forgiven him
for not telling him everything and for, in essence, tempting him with
the Hallows. There's no indication that Harry now views DD as having
raised him as a pig to be slaughtered. Death clearly *is* "the next
great adventure" and not to be feared except by those whose souls are
mangled beyond repair and who are incapable of repentance and
therefore of redemption. It also seems to be a place where scars and
injuries are healed--not only DD's hand and Harry's scar but Lupin's
lycanthropy and the mental and emotional scars that Sirius Black
received in Azkaban (he looks young and happy again when Harry sees
him). I suspect that Luna is right; loved ones can be reunited in the
afterlife. Whether dead DD has yet had the courage to face Ariana I
don't know, but I think he could if he wanted to.
> 
> 4.	The theme of the hero given a choice whether to rest or to go 
back and possibly be hurt more or prevail over the enemy is fairly
common in the fantasy genre. When Harry makes his decision to go back
did you feel at any time that he is going back to die for real now?
Explain why or why not.

Carol responds:
I was always sure that Harry would live, and I thought that *if* he
turned out to be a Horcrux, he would have to come back from the dead
or have a near-death experience or seem to die because he couldn't
both die to destroy the Horcrux *and* kill Voldemort. (It was obvious
from the outset that Voldie would die--JKR couldn't leave an imperiled
WW with no "Chosen One"). Once Harry chose to go back, there was no
doubt in my mind that he would return and that he would be victorious.
I didn't anticipate the exact circumstances but I still hoped that he
wouldn't cast an AK.
> 
> 5.	"Of house elves and children's tales, of love, loyalty and 
innocence, Voldemort knows and understands nothing. Nothing. That 
they all have a power beyond his own, a power beyond the reach of any
 magic, is a truth he had never grasped". I think that this quote
pretty much sums up one of the major themes in the series. Do you
agree or disagree? Explain why or why not.

Carol responds:
I agree. That quote stood out particularly to me on a rereading. The
Love theme in particular has been stressed throughout. Loyalty, too,
has been important--we see Ron's loyalty tested on several occasions,
the Hufflepuffs are all about loyalty, and the question of where
Snape's loyalties lie has be central since SS/PS. House-Elves (with
the exception of Kreacher) illustrate innocence; House-elves
*including* Kreacher illustrate loyalty. Children's tales I'm not so
sure about. They deal with themes like death, jealousy, greed, love,
on a rather primitive level (I'm thinking of Grimm and the tale of the
three Brothers and the Lemony Snicket books, not Winnie the Pooh).
OTOH, some children's books, including the HP books, parts of "The
Hobbit," and "the Boy in Striped Pajamas") deal with the same themes
in a more sophisticated fashion. LV would not understand why innocence
usually triumphs in a fairy tale, and he wouldn't understand the
motivations of the protagonists in the other books I've named, either.
> 
> 6.	List discussed the injured baby under the table extensively  in
the past, but if you want to please discuss some more here.

Carol responds:
First, it reminds me of the helpless, ugly Baby!mort of GoF (symbolic,
perhaps, of LV's stunted emotional development) but in a more extreme
form, no longer able to issue orders or even to speak. I think that
Harry's revulsion is similar to what he felt when he wanted Voldie in
that form to drown, only this time it's already dead (death isn't
annihilation, even for Voldemort). Dumbledore has been criticized for
not comforting it and not wanting Harry to comfort it, but I think
it's beyond comfort. "The mind is its own place and can make a hell of
heaven and a heaven of hell." Voldemort's mind is in perpetual and
incurable torment of his own making. To pick him up and try to comfort
him would either be useless (agape love, selflessness, the desire to
comfort are beyond his comprehension) or would make matters worse. If
he recognized Harry, he would be far angrier and far more humiliated
than Severus rescued by James but he would be unable to speak his
rage. I can see the helpless baby form with its ugly red face trying
to rear up and strike him and Harry dropping him in horror. The only
thing to do is to leave the irredeemable Voldemort to his self-imposed
eternal despair. (For him, death *is* to be feared, but only because
he made it so through his own beliefs and actions.)
> 
> 7.	Can somebody explain to me one more time what was Dumbledore's
rationale in sending Harry on Hallows Quest?

Carol:
Maybe JKR will clarify it in he encyclopedia. My only thought is that
DD thought that Harry, unlike himself, was worthy of becoming the
Master of Death (whatever that means) and that if he didn't sacrifice
himself and the drop of blood didn't do it's job, maybe having all
three Hallows would protect him. That's probably why DD gave him the
Resurrection Stone so he'd have it and the Cloak, at least, when the
time came to face Voldemort. Also, having Hermione read the "Tale of
the Three Brothers" (and HRH figure out the mystery) enabled Harry to
use the Resurrection Stone when the time came. It also helped Harry to
understand what the Elder Wand was and why Voldemort wanted it.

> 
> 8.	"If you planned your death with Snape, you meant him to end  up
with  the Elder Wand, didn't you? "I admit that was my intention,"
said Dumbledore, "but it did not work as I    intended, did it?
> "No," said Harry, That bit didn't work out"
> 
> What do you think Harry meant by his question? What do you think 
Albus' actual plan was?

Carol responds:

As I started to say in response to the previous question, DD had no
way of knowing when he wrote his will that Draco's Expelliarmus would
ruin his plan to rob the wand of its powers through Snape's AK or
that, for the same reason, the wand would not be in Snape's
possession. Exactly what he intended is not clear, but I think that LV
would never have found the wand. (If Snape had it, it could not have
been buried with DD.) LV would not have found out that it didn't work
for him (or anyone) and Snape would have been safe. He and Portrait!DD
could have agreed on a cover story if LV questioned Snape about the
wand. Maybe Snape discovered that it was a useless stick and threw it
into the ocean or set fire to it--easily demonstrated through a memory
of his doing exactly that. At any rate, DD's words make clear to me
that he didn't expect Snape to die. (Obviously, he could not have
anticipated the manner or circumstances of Snape's death; he thought
that Snape would see Nagini protected and find a way to tell Harry
about the soul bit.)


> 
> 9.	Why do you think chapter was named "King's cross"?

Carol responds;
First, because that's where the chapter seemed to take place. Harry's
idea of a journey into the afterlife resembles his journey to his new
life at Hogwarts, so King's Cross in the dream is like a Platform 9
3/4 with no passengers but himself. (DD doesn't need the train--he's
already "gone on"--and LV will lie there forgotten under the bench,
never getting on the train.) But I think that Christian readers will
see Christ symbolism--Christ the King died on the Cross to redeem
mankind; Harry "died" to save the WW. Hardly the same thing and
Harry's near-death experience is only a symbolic resurrection, not a
real one. Nevertheless, the Christ figure symbolism is there for those
who wish to find it. Those who reject the idea are free to ignore it.
(Again, a Christ figure is not the same as Christ himself. No one who
sees Harry as a Christ figure sees him as part of the Trinity or the
literal son of God. It's sort of like saying that Voldemort is a Satan
or devil figure or archetype without being literally Satan. Not that
he comes anywhere close to Milton's Satan as a literary character!)
> 
> 10.	Please add your own question here.

Carol:

Why do you think that Harry isn't wearing his glasses and doesn't need
them in this chapter? What do the glasses symbolize?

Carol, thanking Alla for the great questions and agreeing with her
that, once again, DD has not told Harry "everything"!




From jkoney65 at yahoo.com  Tue Dec  9 23:05:50 2008
From: jkoney65 at yahoo.com (jkoney65)
Date: Tue, 09 Dec 2008 23:05:50 -0000
Subject: Manipulation in Potterverse and in general /Tigana spoilers
In-Reply-To: <ghmhf7+qni5@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ghmtke+lgfk@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 185140

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" 
<dumbledore11214 at ...> wrote:
>
> > Pippin:
> > Thanks for defining this issue so plainly. People do seem to be 
> using
> > the word manipulation to mean any kind of indirect or emotional
> > persuasion, whereas I believe it applies only when the persuader 
is
> > being deceptive about his goal. 
> <SNIP>
> > Harry was manipulated in that he presumed he was being groomed to 
> face
> > Voldemort because he had a right to do so.  He did not know it was
> > because he was already in mortal peril from the soul bit. But I 
> don't
> > think he was manipulated to love the wizarding world, or his 
friends
> > or Hogwarts, or to be brave enough to die for them. 
>  
> Alla:
> Yes, we are definitely disagreeing on what the manipulation is 
then. 
> While Wiki can be very crappy for in-depth research IMO, I often 
find 
> to be very useful for initial definition. And their definition of 
> social manipulation is pretty much what I am using.
> "A means of gaining control or social influence over others by 
> methods which might be considered unfair. Social advantage may be 
> sought through either manipulative or persuasive rhetorical 
> arguments. "
> When I decide whether character or person is being manipulated, I 
do 
> not care if manipulator wants the person to do what that person in 
> essence would have done himself. I care about two things ? whether 
> manipulator is in **control** of another person and whether the 
> methods manipulator uses to make another person do staff is fair or 
> not.

>snip>
 Anyways back to Potterverse, as I said I do think that Harry chose 
to 
> follow Dumbledore's plan sacrificing him per se. I do think that 
was 
> in him and that is partially why he was sorted in Gryffindor. 
> However, I do think Harry was manipulated into doing so many things 
> that he should not have been. Granted, we would have no stories 
> without it, but again I think those are just two different angles 
to 
> look at the story ? external and internal. Without what I consider 
to 
> be Dumbledore's manipulation of Harry going after Stone, we would 
> have no story. However if the characters were real people, I think 
> Dumbledore would have deserved to be fired **on the spot**, period 
> after the first book. Without Occlumency lessons we would have no 
> OOP, but I have no doubt that Dumbledore manipulated Snape into 
> giving them. What I am trying to say is that even though I know 
that 
> Harry chose on his own, I think he was manipulated that he was put 
in 
> the circumstances of having to choose if that makes sense.
> And of course Harry was not manipulated into loving Hogwarts and 
his 
> friends that I agree with.
> 
> 
> JMO,
> 
> Alla
>
jkoney
In World War I the average life expectancy of a combat pilot started 
at 5 weeks, by April 1917 it was 17.5 minutes (from Wiki). Were all 
of those people being manipulated?  I don't think so. They were 
fighting for a cause, their life/way of life. That is the same thing 
Harry, Lupin, Sirius, etc. were fighting for. I don't believe it is 
manipulation to have sent them out to fight. Harry got the "suicide" 
mission. I don't think he went well I've been manipulated so far, 
might as well go along. I think he realized that he a job to do in 
this war. Go out and face Voldemort and break his power.

JMO
jkoney




From juli17 at aol.com  Wed Dec 10 06:33:37 2008
From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17 at aol.com)
Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2008 01:33:37 EST
Subject: Dumbledore, coward? (was Re: Sirius and Snape parallels again
Message-ID: <cb4.493847ea.3670bcc1@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 185141

 
jkoney wrote:

Dumbledore a coward? How so? He came charging into the MoM and  
captured the DE's. He went after Harry and faced Voldemort in a duel,  
knowing he couldn't destroy Voldemort and win the war. As a leader he  
organized a resistance to Voldemort, when he knew the ministry was  
incapable of stopping him. He faced his own mortality quite well,  
asking Snape to kill him to further the plans for defeating  Voldemort


Julie:
There are other kinds of cowardice/bravery outside the physical. One  can
be brave and daring in the face of physical danger, willing to risk life  and 
limb to protect what one believes in, yet still be an emotional  coward. 
Dumbledore admitted as much about himself; after the loss of his  sister
he avoided emotional intimacy, avoided caring too  deeply about anyone, 
until Harry. He preferred to remain a distant, benevolent presence to  his
students and his professors, to keep his own counsel. I think it  wasn't
only to spare others the burden, but to protect himself. Which isn't all 
that unusual. For many people it takes more courage to risk their  hearts
than their limbs, or at least just as much courage ;-)
 
 
Julie
**************Make your life easier with all your friends, email, and 
favorite sites in one place.  Try it now. 
(http://www.aol.com/?optin=new-dp&icid=aolcom40vanity&ncid=emlcntaolcom00000010)


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk  Wed Dec 10 14:16:58 2008
From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister)
Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2008 14:16:58 -0000
Subject: CHAPDISC: DH35, KING'S CROSS
In-Reply-To: <ghmtc0+8pum@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ghoj0q+nvah@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 185142

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Carol" <justcarol67 at ...> wrote:
>
> Chapter Discussion: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Chapter 35,
> KING CROSS

> 9.	Why do you think chapter was named "King's cross"?
 
Carol:
> First, because that's where the chapter seemed to take place. 

Geoff:
True. My feeling is that, if he had to imagine a railway station 
situation, this is the station he  knows best and perhaps you are 
correct in that it did remind him of a new direction in his life, 
although that was probably also true of his first visit to the Leaky 
Cauldron and Diagon Alley with Hagrid when he travelled home 
from the railway station at Paddington.

Carol:
> Harry's idea of a journey into the afterlife resembles his journey to 
> his new life at Hogwarts, so King's Cross in the dream is like a 
> Platform 9 3/4 with no passengers but himself. 

<snip>

> But I think that Christian readers will see Christ symbolism--Christ 
> the King died on the Cross to redeem mankind; Harry "died" to save 
> the WW. Hardly the same thing and Harry's near-death experience is 
> only a symbolic resurrection, not a real one. 

Geoff:
Yes, but he didn't "die" - Dumbledore confirms this twice. He went to a 
place, unspecified as to location (clever!) for this meeting.

Carol:
> Nevertheless, the Christ figure symbolism is there for those
> who wish to find it. Those who reject the idea are free to ignore it.
> (Again, a Christ figure is not the same as Christ himself. No one who
> sees Harry as a Christ figure sees him as part of the Trinity or the
> literal son of God. 

Geoff:
This is possibly a question of semantic differences but I have argued
strongly in the past against Dumbledore or Harry being "Christ figures". 
"Christlike" - yes - but I see these as different. Those of us who are 
Christians are on a journey to God, hoping to become more Christlike 
as we continue, although stlll a long way from being perfected but 
never Christ ourselves.

> > 10.	Please add your own question here.

Carol:
> Why do you think that Harry isn't wearing his glasses and doesn't need
> them in this chapter? What do the glasses symbolize?

Geoff:
Following on from my last comment, I saw Christian symbolism when I 
thought of Paul's famous comment  in  the first letter to the Corinthians: 
"Now we see but a poor reflection in a mirror; then we shall see face to 
face." In King's Cross, whatever place it is, Harry can see clearly without 
artificial aids. Continuing the theme, Paul goes on: "Now I know in part; 
then I shall know fully."He can see and realise everything he needs correctly. 






From foxmoth at qnet.com  Wed Dec 10 16:07:08 2008
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2008 16:07:08 -0000
Subject: Manipulation in Potterverse and in general /Tigana spoilers
In-Reply-To: <ghmhf7+qni5@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ghopfc+qqpd@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 185143

  
> Alla:
> Yes, we are definitely disagreeing on what the manipulation is then. 

> While Wiki can be very crappy for in-depth research IMO, I often
find to be very useful for initial definition. And their definition of 
> social manipulation is pretty much what I am using.
> "A means of gaining control or social influence over others by 
> methods which might be considered unfair. Social advantage may be 
> sought through either manipulative or persuasive rhetorical 
> arguments. "

Pippin:
My definition comes from marriage and family counseling. Persuasive
argument can be unfair if you are better at persuasive argument than
your opponent, so unfairness is  a different  issue in a relationship
than being manipulative. 

But we were discussing all this as a motive for Dumbledore to kill
Sirius. 

Even if Dumbledore did set up the first year situation as completely
as Dicentra thinks, he did it planning that Harry would test his
strength, learn to survive and so on, or so he would claim.  Why would
Sirius object to that? 

He wouldn't think it unfair that Harry should learn to survive, no
matter how much hardship it placed on him. Even with Umbridge in
charge, he let Harry stay at Hogwarts, so I can't imagine he'd object
to Dumbledore, even at his hypothetical worst. It is certainly unfair
that  Harry had to work harder than other people to stay alive, but
that was Voldemort's doing, not Dumbledore's. 

Or are you saying that it was Dumbledore's job to make sure that Harry
had an easy life? That's the Dursleys' style of parenting, and I think
we can agree that JKR doesn't think much of it. Anway, Sirius did not
seem much concerned with Harry's comfort.

 I think I can show without relying on Dumbledore's words that he
believed, or hoped,  that if he did all he could to teach Harry to
survive, the time would come when it might be possible. 

The key is the gleam of triumph. Dumbledore didn't just look surprised
or relieved or elated when  he realized that Harry would have a chance
to live -- he looked victorious. You don't look like you've won
something if you haven't been fighting for it.

Pippin




From jkoney65 at yahoo.com  Wed Dec 10 17:41:16 2008
From: jkoney65 at yahoo.com (jkoney65)
Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2008 17:41:16 -0000
Subject: Dumbledore, coward? (was Re: Sirius and Snape parallels again
In-Reply-To: <cb4.493847ea.3670bcc1@aol.com>
Message-ID: <ghouvs+okcu@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 185144

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, juli17 at ... wrote:
>
>  
> jkoney wrote:
> 
> Dumbledore a coward? How so? He came charging into the MoM and  
> captured the DE's. He went after Harry and faced Voldemort in a 
duel,  
> knowing he couldn't destroy Voldemort and win the war. As a leader 
he  
> organized a resistance to Voldemort, when he knew the ministry was  
> incapable of stopping him. He faced his own mortality quite well,  
> asking Snape to kill him to further the plans for defeating  
Voldemort
> 
> 
> Julie:
> There are other kinds of cowardice/bravery outside the physical. 
One  can
> be brave and daring in the face of physical danger, willing to risk 
life  and 
> limb to protect what one believes in, yet still be an emotional  
coward. 
> Dumbledore admitted as much about himself; after the loss of his  
sister
> he avoided emotional intimacy, avoided caring too  deeply about 
anyone, 
> until Harry. He preferred to remain a distant, benevolent presence 
to  his
> students and his professors, to keep his own counsel. I think it  
wasn't
> only to spare others the burden, but to protect himself. Which 
isn't all 
> that unusual. For many people it takes more courage to risk their  
hearts
> than their limbs, or at least just as much courage ;-)
>  
>  
> Julie

jkoney
I think we using different definitions of coward.

>From the online dicitionary:
a person who lacks courage in facing danger, difficulty, opposition, 
pain, etc.; a timid or easily intimidated person.

>From the American Heritage dictionary.
 One who shows ignoble fear in the face of danger or pain. 

The history of the word shows that it comes from "turns tail"

To me it refers only to physical bravery. I don't see how it can be 
used in relation to emotions. If you want to say that Dumbledore was 
emotionally limited I could agree to that. 

Otherwise it seems to me that we are stretching the word coward to 
apply to things that it doesn't really describe. I don't eat mustard, 
does that make me a condiment coward?

JMO
jkoney








From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Wed Dec 10 20:36:19 2008
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2008 20:36:19 -0000
Subject: Manipulation in Potterverse and in general /Tigana spoilers
In-Reply-To: <ghopfc+qqpd@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ghp983+h8dh@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 185145

> Pippin:
<SNIP>
> But we were discussing all this as a motive for Dumbledore to kill
> Sirius. 

Alla:

Sure, but we were also discussing Dumbledore as manipulator in 
general, at least it was my impression.

Pippin: 
> Even if Dumbledore did set up the first year situation as completely
> as Dicentra thinks, he did it planning that Harry would test his
> strength, learn to survive and so on, or so he would claim.  Why 
would
> Sirius object to that? 

Alla:

Hmmm, if it was the game, which would end with them solving the last 
puzzle, I do not think he would. However, there was Voldemort there 
behind the door and if one takes a position that Dumbledore knew or 
highly suspected there was Voldemort there, well, I think it is just 
disgusting that Dumbledore left three eleven year olds to go and face 
him.

And we do have Harry's words that Dumbledore let him face Voldemort 
because Harry has a right, do we not?

I do not have a book in front of me, but I believe that **let him 
face** is there, to me it implies very strongly that Dumbledore knew 
very well what was happening. I always thought that those words of 
Harry really belong to JKR. I mean of course all characters' words 
belong to her, but to me it felt wierd that eleven year old Harry 
would have time to reflect about everybody's behavior including 
Dumbledore and decide that oh yeah, Dumbledore let me do it because 
he felt I have a right.

I think it is there for the reader's benefit, to make sure we know 
what was really going on. IMO of course.

Pippin:
<SNIP>
> Or are you saying that it was Dumbledore's job to make sure that 
Harry
> had an easy life? That's the Dursleys' style of parenting, and I 
think
> we can agree that JKR doesn't think much of it. Anway, Sirius did 
not
> seem much concerned with Harry's comfort.

Alla:

Hm, depends on what you mean by *easy life*. 

I would think that it is Dumbledore's job to care for Harry, 
absolutely since he so actively involved himself in Harry's wellfare, 
without being asked to. So I would say that it is his job to make 
sure that he was not being abused (or neglected, or use whatever 
word). I would say that it is certainly NOT his job to turn living 
breathing human being into the weapon in the war.

And Sirius did not seem much concerned with Harry's comfort? I would 
say also depends on what you mean by comfort. Sirius offers Harry to 
live with him instead of his relatives right away, when he is free. 
So I would say he is very much concerned with Harry's comfort. I do 
not believe Sirius in OOP was in the position to care for Harry much, 
being ill himself IMO. But Sirius in GoF rushes to be closer to Harry 
and wants to know about every problem, every time his scar hurts, 
etc. That counts to me as concern.



Pippin:
>  I think I can show without relying on Dumbledore's words that he
> believed, or hoped,  that if he did all he could to teach Harry to
> survive, the time would come when it might be possible. 
> 
> The key is the gleam of triumph. Dumbledore didn't just look 
surprised
> or relieved or elated when  he realized that Harry would have a 
chance
> to live -- he looked victorious. You don't look like you've won
> something if you haven't been fighting for it.

Alla:

Actually I do not believe you saw me disputing that Dumbledore may 
have a wish for Harry to survive. However, I think that desire came 
very very very late in the game AND I do not think he could knew for 
sure. And he still proceeded with his plans.

So I take it to mean, oh well, if he survives, lovely, if not, who 
cares.

Yes, I know one live versus many lives, however I do not have to like 
it one bit and Israeli army comes to mind again, where every life 
counts and every wounded soldier, soldier who is captured, attempt to 
save them is made. As far as I read anyways. I did not serve in that 
army or any army.

JMO,

Alla




From foxmoth at qnet.com  Wed Dec 10 22:28:18 2008
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2008 22:28:18 -0000
Subject: Manipulation in Potterverse and in general /Tigana spoilers
In-Reply-To: <ghp983+h8dh@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ghpfq2+iise@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 185146

 

> Alla:
> 
> Hmmm, if it was the game, which would end with them solving the last
 puzzle, I do not think he would. However, there was Voldemort there 
behind the door and if one takes a position that Dumbledore knew or 
highly suspected there was Voldemort there, well, I think it is just
disgusting that Dumbledore left three eleven year olds to go and face
 him.
> 
> And we do have Harry's words that Dumbledore let him face Voldemort 
> because Harry has a right, do we not?

Pippin:
"I think he knows more or less everything that goes on here, you know.
I reckon he had a pretty good idea that we were going to try, and
instead of stopping me, he just taught us enough to help. I don't
think it's an accident he let me find out how the Mirror worked. It's
almost like he thought I had the right to face Voldemort if I could."

--PS/SS ch17
Well, we know that Harry's wrong: Dumbledore *doesn't* know about
everything that goes on at Hogwarts. Dark wizards can fool him,
everyone knows that.  The proof is that everyone knows what happened
in the dungeons in Book One,and no character that we know of thinks
that Dumbledore should have known Quirrell was possessed. That part of
the theory is full on tinfoil, IMO. 

Yes, Dumbledore was a legilimens. But Voldemort *knew* that. Voldemort
had just spent ten years hiding out in Albania because he
was afraid of the Aurors. He fled there again as soon as Dumbledore
arrived to pull Quirrell off Harry. Does it make sense that he would
have possessed Quirrell right under Dumbledore's nose if he didn't
think there was some way to conceal himself? 

I presume LV used some combination of occlumency and memory
modification to hide his presence in Quirrell's mind. After all, not
even the scar always detects him, or Harry would have been in agony
during his DADA classes. 

Sure, Dumbledore should have kept the kids out of trouble. But it's
hard to keep kids out of trouble because they do crazy things that
adults would never even think of trying.  

If the Trio thought like adults, they'd have raised the alarm as soon
as they saw the harp. That is all the proof they needed that
someone was trying to steal the stone. Harry even says as he's about
to drop down the trapdoor that if anything happens to him they should
send an owl to Dumbledore. But he doesn't think of doing that  anyway,
LOL. 

It's not that Harry doesn't trust adults, or he wouldn't be saying
that they should get adult help if he fails.  It has nothing to do
with the Mirror being down there, which he doesn't know at the time.
It's just a stupid kid idea, like turning yourself into an Animagus so
you can play pranks with a werewolf in Hogsmeade.

Pippin







From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Thu Dec 11 02:08:18 2008
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2008 02:08:18 -0000
Subject: Manipulation in Potterverse and in general /Tigana spoilers
In-Reply-To: <ghpfq2+iise@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ghpsmi+9nho@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 185147

> Pippin:
> "I think he knows more or less everything that goes on here, you 
know.
> I reckon he had a pretty good idea that we were going to try, and
> instead of stopping me, he just taught us enough to help. I don't
> think it's an accident he let me find out how the Mirror worked. 
It's
> almost like he thought I had the right to face Voldemort if I 
could."
> 
> --PS/SS ch17
> Well, we know that Harry's wrong: Dumbledore *doesn't* know about
> everything that goes on at Hogwarts. Dark wizards can fool him,
> everyone knows that.  The proof is that everyone knows what happened
> in the dungeons in Book One,and no character that we know of thinks
> that Dumbledore should have known Quirrell was possessed. That part 
of
> the theory is full on tinfoil, IMO.

Alla:

Um, we know that Harry is wrong? Quite the contrary, I think he is 
absolutely 100% dead on in the part that he thinks that Dumbledore 
let him face Voldemort. I am completely unpersuaded by your proof, 
because I do not see the relevance of your deduction and it is IMO 
just a deduction. Why WOULD characters say that Dumbledore should 
have known that Quirrell was possessed? How does it prove that 
Dumbledore **did** not know?

I used to be very sceptical about conspiracy theories Pippin, I still 
do not think that the largest of them are correct. I do not agree 
that Dumbledore is the main evil in the Potterverse for example, but 
I think that he is so gray that he is almost on the black end of the 
spectrum. But this part? Um, I used to believe that Dumbledore was, 
well the dolt that let Harry do it, now I think that he let Harry do 
it very very deliberately and yes, I think canon gives us plenty of 
hints.

That part that you cited is to me the strongest, since I do not see 
why as I wrote above any of the characters would ever bother to say 
that. Supposedly Harry understood that, to me it is plenty enough. 
Especially since I believe that initially (and I can be wrong) JKR 
did not know whether the next book in the series will be published or 
not, and wanted PS stand up on its own, more or less. I can be wrong, 
but I believe I read it somewhere. So, mystery that stands on its own 
should have the resolution and I do not believe that lie is counts as 
one. But this is just an aside, as I said I believe Dumbledore 
knowing full well, or highly suspecting what was happening is pretty 
much canon.

Dumbledore tells Snape to keep an eye on Quirrell, does he not? Erm, 
why would you think he takes such a special interest in him? I think 
he strongly suspected that Quirrell is *up to something*, and yes, I 
think up to something being Voldemort was at least among the 
possibilities on his mind.

And then this lovely chat with Dumbledore at the end again - 

"Oh, you know about Nicholas?" said Dumbledore, sounding quite 
delighted. "You did do the thing properly, didn't you?" Well, 
Nicholas and I had a little chat, and agreed it's all for the best" - 
p.297.

So, what thing did Harry do **properly** if not the one that 
Dumbledore set up for him? Oh no, I do not think that Dumbledore 
setting up book 1 is a subversive reading at all, I think it is if 
not plain meaning of the text canon, it is very close to such, IMO of 
course.

Now if we were to think about the reasons Dumbledore did that, then 
of course we can enter into different degrees of subversiveness IMO.

As an aside, my hat goes off to SSSusan again, even though she argued 
it in a bit different context. Yes, him having a little chat with 
Nicholas Flanel to me points very strongly that he made sure that he 
wanted Nicholas and Perenelle to put their affairs asap. And yes, I 
have no doubt that for greater good Dumbledore would not mind anybody 
to be dead. Do I think Flanell was afraid of death? No, of course not.

However they had been living for 600 years or so and before that 
little chat they as far as we know did not seem to express any desire 
to be gone to their next adventure asap. My guess is that they would 
not have minded at all to live another hundred years or to, and here 
comes Dumbledore, ooops.

Pippin:
<SNIP>
> It's just a stupid kid idea, like turning yourself into an Animagus 
so
> you can play pranks with a werewolf in Hogsmeade.

Alla:

That's your right of course to think that this was just a stupid 
kid's idea and of course Dumbledore explained to Harry how Mirror 
works completely by accident, LOL.

Me thinks that this stupid kid's idea was given to them by Albus.

JMO,

Alla




From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Thu Dec 11 14:57:34 2008
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2008 14:57:34 -0000
Subject: CHAPDISC: DH35, KING'S CROSS
In-Reply-To: <ghmtc0+8pum@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ghr9ou+pcgf@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 185148

> Carol:
> <SNIP of the whole post>
> Why do you think that Harry isn't wearing his glasses and doesn't need
> them in this chapter? What do the glasses symbolize?

Alla:

Well Geoff already mentioned about Harry being able to see clearly 
finally, so that part of metaphor is pretty clear to me, however what 
is more interesting to me is that you mentioned that Dumbledore still 
does have his glasses. And since it may very well symbolise that 
Dumbledore still does not see some things clearly and maybe Pippin ? is 
right that Dumbledore still not sure how and if Elder wand plan will 
conme to the  conclusion. Maybe that's why that part of the 
conversation is a bit  contradictory to what is happening in the next 
chapter.


> 
> Carol, thanking Alla for the great questions and agreeing with her
> that, once again, DD has not told Harry "everything"!
>

Alla:

Heh.




From k12listmomma at comcast.net  Thu Dec 11 18:18:19 2008
From: k12listmomma at comcast.net (k12listmomma)
Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2008 11:18:19 -0700
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Manipulation in Potterverse and in general /Tigana spoilers
References: <ghpfq2+iise@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <8BA5C545C5044A6596C5D4C35CF528A8@homemain>

No: HPFGUIDX 185149

>> Alla:
>> And we do have Harry's words that Dumbledore let him face Voldemort
>> because Harry has a right, do we not?
>
> Pippin:
> "I think he knows more or less everything that goes on here, you know.
> I reckon he had a pretty good idea that we were going to try, and
> instead of stopping me, he just taught us enough to help. I don't
> think it's an accident he let me find out how the Mirror worked. It's
> almost like he thought I had the right to face Voldemort if I could."
>
> --PS/SS ch17
> Well, we know that Harry's wrong: Dumbledore *doesn't* know about
> everything that goes on at Hogwarts. Dark wizards can fool him,
> everyone knows that.  The proof is that everyone knows what happened
> in the dungeons in Book One,and no character that we know of thinks
> that Dumbledore should have known Quirrell was possessed. That part of
> the theory is full on tinfoil, IMO.
>
> Yes, Dumbledore was a legilimens. But Voldemort *knew* that. Voldemort
> had just spent ten years hiding out in Albania because he
> was afraid of the Aurors. He fled there again as soon as Dumbledore
> arrived to pull Quirrell off Harry. Does it make sense that he would
> have possessed Quirrell right under Dumbledore's nose if he didn't
> think there was some way to conceal himself?
>
> I presume LV used some combination of occlumency and memory
> modification to hide his presence in Quirrell's mind. After all, not
> even the scar always detects him, or Harry would have been in agony
> during his DADA classes.
>
> Sure, Dumbledore should have kept the kids out of trouble. But it's
> hard to keep kids out of trouble because they do crazy things that
> adults would never even think of trying.
>
> If the Trio thought like adults, they'd have raised the alarm as soon
> as they saw the harp. That is all the proof they needed that
> someone was trying to steal the stone. Harry even says as he's about
> to drop down the trapdoor that if anything happens to him they should
> send an owl to Dumbledore. But he doesn't think of doing that  anyway,
> LOL.
>
> It's not that Harry doesn't trust adults, or he wouldn't be saying
> that they should get adult help if he fails.  It has nothing to do
> with the Mirror being down there, which he doesn't know at the time.
> It's just a stupid kid idea, like turning yourself into an Animagus so
> you can play pranks with a werewolf in Hogsmeade.
>
> Pippin

Shelley:
Here's where logic comes in, in my mind. Rowling is writing a book, a book 
in which the Hero is Harry, and his sidekicks are Ron and Hermione. She 
needs a way for them to have the adventure ALONE, i.e., without the 
assistance of any adults. So, to that end, she writes that line: if anything 
happens to me, send an owl to Dumbledore. Problem solved- the kids are alone 
because they simply saw the situation first, and failed to tell any adults 
before they went and did their thing. It's a common tactic in stories in 
which the hero is a child. They have to face odds that only an adult would 
do, but for the sake of the story, no adults are involved.

So, in my way of thinking, we could try an analyze why a "real" Harry 
wouldn't trust adults, or why he would want to run off and play the hero, 
but in reality, Rowling is just writing a story, and needs to force some 
points here and there, just believing that the readers are going to accept 
her premise without question (no adults necessary!) and move on, as we all 
want to know just as much as the trio does, what is down there, past Fluffy. 
So, we skip right past the idea that they don't call any adults and rush 
into that maze with our heroes.

The line about Dumbledore knowing "everything" that goes on in Hogwarts is 
also a plot device, in my mind, because then the reader goes through the 
entire series thinking "did Dumbledore know about this, did Dumbledore know 
about that", and it adds a little of Dumbledore to every scene, even though 
he's not present for that scene. It's a clever trick to get you thinking 
about what magical elements Dumbledore might be using to spy on everyone and 
everything, and that one line has been a source of great speculation on the 
part of the fandom, even though Rowling never did explain "how" (chocolate 
frog cards, portraits, magical listening devices, etc.) Dumbledore might 
actual accomplish this feat.

Shelley 




From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Thu Dec 11 19:44:42 2008
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2008 19:44:42 -0000
Subject: Manipulation in Potterverse and in general /Tigana spoilers
In-Reply-To: <ghpfq2+iise@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ghrqja+tocm@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 185150

Pippin wrote:
<snip>
> --PS/SS ch17
> Well, we know that Harry's wrong: Dumbledore *doesn't* know about
everything that goes on at Hogwarts. Dark wizards can fool him,
everyone knows that.  The proof is that everyone knows what happened
in the dungeons in Book One,and no character that we know of thinks
that Dumbledore should have known Quirrell was possessed. That part of
the theory is full on tinfoil, IMO. 
<snip>

Carol responds:

I realize that your point is that DD probably didn't know that
Quirrell was possessed, a point I'm not sure about. (Snape had plenty
of chances to perform Legilimency on Quirrell without Voldemort, who
was looking out the *back* of Quirrell's head, seeing him do it. And
if snape knew, he'd tell LV.)

However, I'm actually responding to a side point here, your statement
that everyone knew what happened with Harry and Quirrell. True, DD
says that "the whole school knows," but what, exactly, did they know?
that Quirrell was trying to steal the Sorceror's/Philosopher's Stone?
They couldn't have known that LV was possessing Quirrell, or Percy,
among others, wouldn't have denied that he was back in OoP. They
couldn't have known exactly how Quirrell died, either. (If it happened
as it did in the film, people might have accused Harry of killing
Quirrell--in self-defense, of course.) The students in the Hog's Head
don't seem to have a clear idea of events in either Harry's first or
his second year, and the awarding of points for courage, clear
thinking in the face of danger, and the best-played game of chess in
many years in SS/PS don't provide much information.

What, I wonder, did Dumbledore tell the students and staff (other than
Snape, who would have been told the full truth and may have been there
when DD rescued Harry, since Harry says that he heard voices and DD
doesn't talk to himself)? We know that DD's idea of "everything" is
rather different from the reader's idea of everything! Anyone have any
ideas?

Carol, who needs to get back to her Christmas cards and finish her
Christmas shopping before the crowds make shopping an ordeal rather
than a pleasure




From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Thu Dec 11 20:31:17 2008
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2008 20:31:17 -0000
Subject: Manipulation in Potterverse and in general /Tigana spoilers
In-Reply-To: <ghpsmi+9nho@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ghrtal+i8eo@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 185151

Alla wrote:
> 
> Um, we know that Harry is wrong? Quite the contrary, I think he is 
> absolutely 100% dead on in the part that he thinks that Dumbledore 
> let him face Voldemort. I am completely unpersuaded by your proof, 
> because I do not see the relevance of your deduction and it is IMO 
> just a deduction. Why WOULD characters say that Dumbledore should 
> have known that Quirrell was possessed? How does it prove that 
> Dumbledore **did** not know?
<snip> But this is just an aside, as I said I believe Dumbledore 
> knowing full well, or highly suspecting what was happening is pretty 
> much canon.
> 
> Dumbledore tells Snape to keep an eye on Quirrell, does he not? Erm, 
> why would you think he takes such a special interest in him? I think 
> he strongly suspected that Quirrell is *up to something*, and yes, I 
> think up to something being Voldemort was at least among the 
> possibilities on his mind. <snip>

Carol responds:

First, I agree with you that Dumbledore knew Harry was going after the
Philosopher's Stone and not only didn't discourage him but to some
extent helped him (the Invisibility Cloak, the Mirror of Erised). He
did not, however, tell him everything he needed to know. He wanted
Harry and his friends to figure it out on their own and to be able to
survive the dangers they were facing. (I don't think that DD himself
specified the tasks; it was JKR who made sure that, for example, the
chess game matched Ron's one special talent!)

However, knowing that Quirrell was "up to something" (as DD obviously
did or he wouldn't have had Snape keep an eye on him) and suspecting
that he was stealing the Philosopher's Stone for Voldemort (as snape
obviously suspected or he wouldn't have talked about where Quirrell's
loyalties lie) isn't the same as knowing that Quirrell is possessed
(which Snape might or might not have found out through Legilimency).
DD would have had sufficient reason to be suspicious of Quirrell when
he came back from Albania(?) stammering and stuttering, perhaps no
longer willing to meet LV's eyes, and still more when he showed up for
the first day of class wearing that smelly turban. Since he hid the
stone at Hogwarts (mentioning the third-floor corridor at the opening
day banquet), it's obvious that he not only expected but *intended*
for Quirrell to try to steal the Stone. (Note that he is the only
teacher of the five key subjects taught to all students--Potions,
Transfiguration, charms, Herbology, and DADA--who was not asked to
help guard the Stone, along with the loyal Hagrid.)

What I don't understand is how DD knew that LV would attempt to steal
the Stone from Gringotts *before* Quirrell put on the turban. (LV
possessed him to "keep a closer eye" on him *after* he failed to steal
the Stone in the Gringotts break-in. It's the sort of thing that
misled many of us into thinking that DD was more or less omniscient.

Carol, who looked out her window Sunday morning expecting to see a dog
and instead saw a javelina (wild pig) in her yard! 





From foxmoth at qnet.com  Thu Dec 11 21:51:03 2008
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2008 21:51:03 -0000
Subject: Manipulation in Potterverse and in general /Tigana spoilers
In-Reply-To: <ghrtal+i8eo@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ghs207+5oor@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 185152

Carol:
 it's obvious that he not only expected but *intended*
> for Quirrell to try to steal the Stone. (Note that he is the only
> teacher of the five key subjects taught to all students--Potions,
> Transfiguration, charms, Herbology, and DADA--who was not asked to
> help guard the Stone, along with the loyal Hagrid.)

Pippin:
Quirrell did indeed help to guard the Stone. He supplied the troll. I
agree that Dumbledore knew that Harry would eventually try to retrieve
the stone. I don't think he intended that Harry should try to stop
Quirrell from doing so. Harry would have been no match for even a weak
wizard like Quirrell in a duel -- he was very fortunate that Quirrell
attempted to lay hands on him  before using a spell. 

Carol:
> What I don't understand is how DD knew that LV would attempt to
steal the Stone from Gringotts *before* Quirrell put on the turban.
(LV possessed him to "keep a closer eye" on him *after* he failed to
steal the Stone in the Gringotts break-in. 

Pippin:
Agreed DD *wanted* Quirrell to try to steal the stone -- it was the
bait in the trap he was setting, something Voldemort could not resist.
Since the protections had to be set up in advance, Quirrell probably
knew the Stone was coming to Hogwarts and  decided to try to steal it
from Gringotts before it could be fetched. His failure not only
disappointed the Dark Lord, it  was certain to put Dumbledore on his
guard. It was at that point that he was possessed. 

Dumbledore could not have known he was possessed before, since he
wasn't. The only outward change was the smelly turban. Quirrell was
obviously lying about why he was wearing it, but even if Dumbledore
guessed that the purpose was to hide the marks of LV's punishment, it
doesn't follow that he could guess what the punishment was.

Pippin 







From lizzyben04 at yahoo.com  Thu Dec 11 22:48:21 2008
From: lizzyben04 at yahoo.com (lizzyben04)
Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2008 22:48:21 -0000
Subject: Manipulation in Potterverse and in general /Tigana spoilers
In-Reply-To: <ghs207+5oor@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ghs5bl+pfnk@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 185153

Pippin:
> Dumbledore could not have known he was possessed before, since he
> wasn't. The only outward change was the smelly turban. Quirrell was
> obviously lying about why he was wearing it, but even if Dumbledore
> guessed that the purpose was to hide the marks of LV's punishment, 
it
> doesn't follow that he could guess what the punishment was.
> 
> Pippin

lizzyben:

DD could certainly guess. He's a Legimens! And no one mention's 
Quirrell being any kind of great Occlumens. There were plenty of 
clues (as you've mentioned) to draw suspicion to Quirrell before LV's 
posession - all DD would need to do is a quick Legimens scan. I 
acknowledge that some of the DD conspiracy theories are "tin-foil" 
but IMO this one's canon. And it's the basis for the many speculative 
theories that follow. Because if DD could do something like this 
(killing off Quirrel, Flamel, Flamel's wife, etc. in the process) 
just for *training*, what wasn't he capable of?  

JKR practically gave a shout-out to the puppetmaster!DD people 
in "The Prince's Tale." She drops hint after hint until the narrative 
practically screams out that DD set up the PS confrontation. DD tells 
Snape that he's let Harry "try his strength." (very similar to 
Harry's own statement at the end of PS). He tells Snape to "keep an 
eye on Quirrel" w/his eyes screwed shut. In one short chapter, the 
text tells us about the Quirrel set-up at least twice. DD is also 
avoiding eye-contact w/Snape, which he does when he's *lying* to 
Snape. He also does this while he tells Snape about how Harry got his 
horcrux, which makes me wonder!

That final chapter of PS was meant to be ambiguous *before* DH, but 
not after. It sets up a dilemma for people who might not have thought 
of it before - just what kind of man is DD? Is he capable of doing 
such a thing? Harry says he would, Hermione says he wouldn't. The 
narrative is silent about the answer, until the final novel. The 
chapter title is no coincidence: "The Man With Two Faces". We see 
one face of DD in PS, & don't see the other face until the last book 
(and it's not a pretty one!) I actually think this was very well set-
up by JKR.

jkoney:
Everyone including Dumbledore knew Lockhart was a fraud.
Unfortunately, he had no other choices to fill the position. So he
ended up being stuck with a fraud in the position.

lizzyben:

Lupin? Mad-Eye? There's not one person in all the wizarding world? 
IMO Lockhart was hired as part of Harry's "training". DD did not want 
Harry to get a swelled head or think too highly of himself, so 
Lockhart was a good lesson for that. 


jkoney:
As for Moody, I also have a tough time with this. Moody was
considered "mad" so the behavior of the imposter didn't seem that
odd. There was also a tournament with other schools keeping
Dumbledore busy.


lizzyben:

Not so busy that he couldn't find time to read the "Little Hangleton" 
newspaper, which was likely full of news of the Riddle 
groundskeeper's mysterious death. So DD knows that LV is now *back*. 
He knows LV likes to infiltrate Hogwarts through new DADA professors. 
And he knows Mad-Eye was just involved in some sort of fight at his 
home, shortly after the groundskeeper's death. He knows it's 
possible/probable LV will try to use an imposter/imperiused Moody to 
get back to Hogwarts. It wasn't worth a quick Legimens scan to make 
sure this guy is *really* Moody? Maybe check out the old Riddle 
estate? The estate owned by a mysterious old man who keeps it vacant 
for "tax reasons"?

IMO DD knew who Moody was all along & knew LV's plan perfectly well. 
That's why he had a "gleam of triumph" when it worked. IMO he even 
helped it along. He knew LV would go back to the Riddle estate - so 
DD purchased the property to be apprised of LV's return.  He's an 
expert on "blood magic" & doubtless knew the ritual for LV's rebirth. 
DD wanted LV to use Harry's blood as "the blood of an enemy" in order 
to regenerate. This gave Harry a chance of eventual survival against 
LV, but ended up killing Cedric Diggory. Oh, Crouch Sr. too. But DD 
stated in OOTP that he would be willing to sacrifice thousands for 
Harry's happiness, so for him it's a fair trade. 

When Crouch Sr. showed up at Hogwarts, desperate to reveal 
that "Moody" was really his Death Eater son, DD knew he could ruin 
the whole plan. That's why DD notified "Moody"/Crouch Jr. and 
ONLY "Moody"/Crouch Jr., that Crouch Sr. was on the premises. He set 
it up & then he sat back & waited for the Death Eater to dispose of 
the inconvenient person. Through all this, he didn't *force* anyone 
to do anything & he didn't *directly* kill anyone. It's classic DD! 


lizzyben 




From willsonkmom at msn.com  Fri Dec 12 13:37:16 2008
From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat)
Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2008 13:37:16 -0000
Subject: CHAPDISC: DH35, KING'S CROSS
In-Reply-To: <ghhtkn+j0r3@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ghtpec+7une@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 185154

snipping summary and a few questions:
Alla wrote:

> 2.    Is the action in this chapter happens in Harry's head or some 
> other place?               
?? Explain why or why not.

Potioncat:
If this was all in his head, and Harry working out the situation with 
a dream, then everything DD said was Harry's own ideas and wasn't the 
real DD speaking. So I think it was supposed to be in some Hereafter.

I'm not sure everyone who dies goes to King's Cross, because Harry is 
really having a "near death" experience. DD doesn't seem to recognize 
the place. However, it's always hard to tell what DD knows and 
whether his asking the question meant he didn't know the answer. 



> 3.    Where do you think Dumbledore spends his days now?

Potioncat:
Not in the Heavenly King's Cross----whoa, that doesn't sound right.

JKR kept her WW Hereafter very vague. I'm sure DD is doing whatever 
it is wizards do when they go on. But I don't think he's stuck at 
King's Cross station. It's not clear to me how much the Reverants (is 
that the word someone coined?) know about what's happening back on 
Earth. Lily and James seemed to know what Harry had been up to, but 
it could have been Sirius and Remus who told them. DD asks if his 
plan for the wand worked. But in typical ambiguous English, it's hard 
to tell if the question was genuine or rhetorical.



> 
> 4.	The theme of the hero given a choice whether to rest or to go 
> back and possibly be hurt more or prevail over the enemy is fairly 
> common in the fantasy genre. When Harry makes his decision to go 
back 
> did you feel at any time that he is going back to die for real now? 
?? Explain why or why not.

Potioncat:
I thought he had "died" and would now get to survive. Actually I 
thought it was a pretty cool way for JKR to work it out.


> 
> 6.	List discussed the injured baby under the table extensively 
?? in the past, but if you want to please discuss some more here.

Susan replied in:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/185135


> Uncomfortable... distressing... squirmy... horrified... these are 
all 
> words which could describe how I felt reading this section.  Ugh!  
> I'm pretty much avoiding the entire question because I still have 
not 
> adequately assessed my own response, nor the reasons for it.  (I've 
> got some personal wrestling to do, I guess.)  I must say, though, 
> that I think Montavilla nailed a part of it for me ?V the fact that 
> I'm not at all sure how I feel about the concept of eternal 
> punishment, other than that I'm fairly disinclined to believe in 
it.  
?? Perhaps that is at the root of a lot of my discomfort.

Potioncat:
(Hey SSSusan! Good to see you!)
The flayed baby hasn't been punished by some WW deity; this is what 
Tom Riddle did to himself. This is the condition his soul is in when 
he arrives. The first time I read this chapter, I thought it was the 
soul bit from Harry!Horcrux. It's in the next chapter that I realized 
this is what's left of Riddle's soul. Not much there, and not in good 
shape. This is the soul that is/was LV on earth. Every time he's 
murdered, he's ripped it--and of course he chose to tear off 7 pieces 
of his soul. 

We don't get a lot of WW theology, and what we get is in broad 
stripes. Not that I'm asking for any, you understand. But in the RW, 
there are those who don't so much believe in a Hell, but rather being 
cut off from God, or forever living with our sins/choices.  After 
seeing Riddle's soul, I can understand why Snape had become concerned 
about the condition of his.

DD says there's nothing they can do about the baby, and he's probably 
right. (nothing 'they' can do) Harry is feeling compassion for this 
ugly baby, contrasting to the revulsion he felt for the same ugly 
baby in life. It seems Harry has grown. In the next chapter, Harry 
makes one last effort to help Tom Riddle mend his soul. It was 
Riddle's choice to ignore the help.

It isn't clear whether LV was aware of being King's Cross. It doesn't 
appear he was. If all he recalls is being in severe pain, then he has 
even more reason to fear death.


Excellent summary and thought provoking questions, Alla! I hope to 
answer the other questions later.




















From danjerri at madisoncounty.net  Fri Dec 12 13:48:40 2008
From: danjerri at madisoncounty.net (Jerri&Dan Chase)
Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2008 07:48:40 -0600
Subject: CHAPDISC: DH35, KING'S CROSS
In-Reply-To: <1229086446.2071.56681.m46@yahoogroups.com>
References: <1229086446.2071.56681.m46@yahoogroups.com>
Message-ID: <4050D53FE01E447BBD572C9A5DBBE623@JerriPC>

No: HPFGUIDX 185155

>> Carol:
>> <SNIP of the whole post>
>> Why do you think that Harry isn't wearing his glasses and doesn't need
>> them in this chapter? What do the glasses symbolize?
>
> Alla:
>
> Well Geoff already mentioned about Harry being able to see clearly
> finally, so that part of metaphor is pretty clear to me, however what
> is more interesting to me is that you mentioned that Dumbledore still
> does have his glasses. And since it may very well symbolise that
> Dumbledore still does not see some things clearly and maybe Pippin ? is
> right that Dumbledore still not sure how and if Elder wand plan will
> conme to the  conclusion. Maybe that's why that part of the
> conversation is a bit  contradictory to what is happening in the next
> chapter.

And Jerri responds:
And I simply thought that as this was "real" AND "in Harry's head" that 
Dumbledore had his glasses because Harry's image of DD included his glasses.

The issue of glasses in the JKR wizarding world has always been a bit 
incomplete to me, as if tooth size, etc. can be changed by magic, why can't 
eyes be improved so that one doesn't need glasses.  And it's not just some 
rare situation.  LOTS of characters have glasses, Harry DD, McG, Rita 
Skeeter to just mention a few off the top of my head.

However, probably the reason is that when JKR first had Harry walk into her 
life, as a boy who didn't know he was a wizard he was wearing glasses, and 
they became so much a part of his character that she had to modify the 
wizarding world to have glasses fit.

But, I would like to see the issue addressed in her encyclopedia when/if it 
appears.

Jerri 




From foxmoth at qnet.com  Fri Dec 12 16:23:21 2008
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2008 16:23:21 -0000
Subject: Manipulation in Potterverse and in general /Tigana spoilers
In-Reply-To: <ghs5bl+pfnk@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ghu35p+821m@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 185156

-
> lizzyben:
> 
> DD could certainly guess. He's a Legimens! And no one mention's 
> Quirrell being any kind of great Occlumens. 

Pippin:
"He [Voldemort] did not dare reveal himself to a former ally if that
ally might turn him over to Dumbledore or the Ministry. I deeply
regret that he did not trust me. He would have returned to power three
years sooner. As it was, I saw only greedy and unworthy Quirrell
attempting to steal the stone and, I admit, I did all I could to
thwart him." -HBP ch 2

How Voldemort arranged that Snape could see only greedy and unworthy
Quirrell, canon does not say, but Bella finds no doubt that it's
possible. And if Snape can be thwarted so can Dumbledore. Bella knows
that Snape is a legilimens of course, since she puts Draco on his
guard against him. 

The "keep an eye on Quirrell" had to be there to clue us in that Snape
was/would be reporting on him to Dumbledore. There had been a lot of
debate about whether Dumbledore actually knew about Snape's suspicions
at all.  

I'm not doubting manipulative DD, he's as real as cowardly,
passive-aggressive Lupin. But to have set up the  protections  when
the school year starts, before the Trio have become friends, and
before anyone has a chance to discover their skills, he would have to
be not only manipulative but omniscient, clairvoyant and prescient as
well. 

The most solid clue that he might have done it, IMO, was the three
broomsticks in the Keys Room. But now that we know about the RoR, it
seems more likely that the Keys Room simply conjured enough
broomsticks for the number of visitors present.

Pippin








From sweenlit at gmail.com  Fri Dec 12 19:52:35 2008
From: sweenlit at gmail.com (Lynda Cordova)
Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2008 11:52:35 -0800
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Manipulation in Potterverse and in general /Tigana spoilers
In-Reply-To: <ghu35p+821m@eGroups.com>
References: <ghs5bl+pfnk@eGroups.com> <ghu35p+821m@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <43e41d1e0812121152n7bc100f2t782777d7c696d31e@mail.gmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 185157

Pippin:

to have set up the protections when
the school year starts, before the Trio have become friends, and
before anyone has a chance to discover their skills, he would have to
be not only manipulative but omniscient, clairvoyant and prescient as
well.

Lynda:

I have long suspected that DD had far more "foresight" than JKR ever let on
in the text--his consistent remarks on the difficulties with his divination
teachers is far too convenient for me to think otherwise.

Lynda


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net  Fri Dec 12 20:26:22 2008
From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman)
Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2008 20:26:22 -0000
Subject: CHAPDISC: DH35, KING'S CROSS
In-Reply-To: <ghtpec+7une@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ghuhde+9n9i@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 185158

Alla:
> > 6.	List discussed the injured baby under the table extensively 
> ?? in the past, but if you want to please discuss some more here.
 
Susan replied in:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/185135
> 
> 
> Uncomfortable... distressing... squirmy... horrified... these are 
> all words which could describe how I felt reading this section.  
> Ugh! I'm pretty much avoiding the entire question because I still 
> have not adequately assessed my own response, nor the reasons for 
> it.  (I've got some personal wrestling to do, I guess.)  I must 
> say, though, that I think Montavilla nailed a part of it for me in
> the fact that I'm not at all sure how I feel about the concept of 
> eternal  punishment, other than that I'm fairly disinclined to 
> believe in it.  
> ?? Perhaps that is at the root of a lot of my discomfort.
 
Potioncat:
> (Hey SSSusan! Good to see you!)

SSSusan:
And always good to see you, too. :)


Potioncat:
> The flayed baby hasn't been punished by some WW deity; this is what 
> Tom Riddle did to himself. This is the condition his soul is in 
> when he arrives. The first time I read this chapter, I thought it 
> was the soul bit from Harry!Horcrux. It's in the next chapter that 
> I realized this is what's left of Riddle's soul. Not much there, 
> and not in good shape. This is the soul that is/was LV on earth. 
> Every time he's murdered, he's ripped it--and of course he chose to 
> tear off 7 pieces of his soul. 

SSSusan:
That's a good point to make -- that this is what Voldy did TO 
HIMSELF, that this is what is left of his soul because of his own 
choices, not that this is what some God or Hell has done *to* his 
soul.  

Maybe it was JKR's decision to utilize a *baby* to symbolize the soul 
that had me so uncomfortable?  I mean, I'm not really very into 
vengeance or punishment anyway, so I wouldn't have enjoyed a 
groveling adult Voldy, but if the soul in this scene had been the 
adult Voldemort we'd become accustomed to seeing, the way Harry was 
recognizably Harry in King's Cross, maybe I wouldn't have been so 
uncomfortable.  The image of a baby whimpering, though.... It 
inserts, for me, the issue of innocence.  If one pulls that imagery 
OUT of the scene and remind me that this is Voldy's soul as *he* 
ruined it himself, then I'm okay; but why did JKR use a *baby* to 
represent it?


Potioncat:
> We don't get a lot of WW theology, and what we get is in broad 
> stripes. Not that I'm asking for any, you understand. But in the 
> RW, there are those who don't so much believe in a Hell, but rather 
> being cut off from God, or forever living with our sins/choices.  
> After seeing Riddle's soul, I can understand why Snape had become 
> concerned about the condition of his.

SSSusan:
Indeed!  I never blamed Snape at all for asking that question of DD!  
I tried to take out of it that DD truly believed that killing another 
person at his request, out of mercy or the good of the cause, would 
not constitute murder or tearing of the soul.  But that's not really 
here nor there, I suppose.  

More to the point you're raising is that, yes, I'm one of those 
people who tends to not believe in a "place" called Hell and, in 
fact, has trouble even with the concept of "bad people" being forever 
cut off from God and goodness.  (Like I said, I have some wrestling 
of my own to do with these issues in general. ;))


Potioncat:
> DD says there's nothing they can do about the baby, and he's 
> probably right. (nothing 'they' can do) Harry is feeling compassion 
> for this ugly baby, contrasting to the revulsion he felt for the 
> same ugly baby in life. It seems Harry has grown. In the next 
> chapter, Harry makes one last effort to help Tom Riddle mend his 
> soul. It was Riddle's choice to ignore the help.

SSSusan:
Yes, I agree, there wasn't anything DD or Harry could do about the 
baby.  Like you said, it was Voldy's own choices that caused his soul 
to be in that condition.  Still, JKR inserted that bit into the story 
and there has to be a *reason* for her doing so and for the imagery 
she chose.  Again, why show the mangled Voldy soul as a *baby*?  Why 
show the suffering and misery of it?  What message is being shared in 
that?  Or was the message more in the fact that, in spite of DD's 
saying there wasn't anything they could do, Harry *did* still try one 
more time when he went back?  Is JKR trying to tell us that it's 
always worth trying one more time to show someone the right path?

I obviously have a lot of questions here. :)

Siriusly Snapey Susan






From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk  Fri Dec 12 23:25:16 2008
From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister)
Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2008 23:25:16 -0000
Subject: CHAPDISC: DH35, KING'S CROSS
In-Reply-To: <ghuhde+9n9i@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ghurss+fn67@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 185159

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "cubfanbudwoman" 
<susiequsie23 at ...> wrote:
Potioncat:
> > DD says there's nothing they can do about the baby, and he's 
> > probably right. (nothing 'they' can do) Harry is feeling 
> > compassion for this ugly baby, contrasting to the revulsion he 
> > felt for the same ugly baby in life. It seems Harry has grown. In 
> > the next chapter, Harry makes one last effort to help Tom Riddle 
> > mend his soul. It was Riddle's choice to ignore the help.
 
SSSusan:
> Yes, I agree, there wasn't anything DD or Harry could do about the 
> baby.  Like you said, it was Voldy's own choices that caused his 
> soul to be in that condition.  Still, JKR inserted that bit into 
> the story and there has to be a *reason* for her doing so and for 
> the imagery she chose.  Again, why show the mangled Voldy soul as a 
> *baby*?  Why show the suffering and misery of it?  What message is 
> being shared in that?  Or was the message more in the fact that, in 
> spite of DD's saying there wasn't anything they could do, Harry 
> *did* still try one more time when he went back?  Is JKR trying to 
> tell us that it's always worth trying one more time to show someone 
> the right path?

> I obviously have a lot of questions here. :)
> 
> Siriusly Snapey Susan

Geoff:
Susan, I'm away from home for a couple of days in Cardiff,
without my trusty HP volumes so if I get anything wrong 
from memory, ignore it!

Back in GOF, when Wormtail brought the remnants of Voldemort 
to the cauldron in the graveyard to be restored, the 
description made me personally think of a foetus or something 
similar - out in the open, grotesque, rather unpleasant to 
view and effectively helpless.

The "baby" at King's Cross railway station produces the same 
reactions in me. This is not really a baby; it is a soul that 
because of its own actions has reduced itself to the status 
of an unborn child. It (he?) is unable to help itself, it 
cannot see or have an existence outside the limited senses 
it has retained. Voldemort has returned himself to where he 
was as an unborn child and can do nothing to help himself. 
An interesting speculation is how much of this the "baby" can 
understand if it has been reduced to the state of an unborn 
or newly-born infant.

Like you, I have problems as a Christian deciding what happens 
to the unsaved soul and it seems that this may be a facet 
of JKR's thoughts on the same topic.




From willsonkmom at msn.com  Sat Dec 13 23:17:26 2008
From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat)
Date: Sat, 13 Dec 2008 23:17:26 -0000
Subject: CHAPDISC: DH35, KING'S CROSS
In-Reply-To: <ghurss+fn67@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gi1fq6+78om@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 185160

 
> Geoff:
> 
> Back in GOF, when Wormtail brought the remnants of Voldemort 
> to the cauldron in the graveyard to be restored, the 
> description made me personally think of a foetus or something 
> similar - out in the open, grotesque, rather unpleasant to 
> view and effectively helpless.

Potioncat:
That was my reaction too. And I think it's what generated the 
theories that perhaps Bertha Jorkins had been used to concieve the 
foetus. 

> Geoff:
> The "baby" at King's Cross railway station produces the same 
> reactions in me. This is not really a baby; it is a soul that 
> because of its own actions has reduced itself to the status 
> of an unborn child. 

Potioncat:
Hard to separate the image of innocence from the baby, even an ugly 
one. Was Tom Riddle's soul always stunted? If so, did he ever have a 
choice in life? Or, has his soul regressed as it was corrupted. I 
seem to recall someone suggesting LV was a big baby--having deadly 
tantrums. Perhaps that childish (not child-like) behavior reflected 
his soul.

But, why did JKR go out of her way to make Riddle's soul in such an 
image when Harry's and DD's seems very much like they are in life. Of 
course, theirs hadn't been as damaged in life.

> Geoff:
> Like you, I have problems as a Christian deciding what happens 
> to the unsaved soul and it seems that this may be a facet 
> of JKR's thoughts on the same topic.

Potioncat:
JKR has said she wrestles with aspects of her faith. And this one is 
a biggy! I have the hardest times explaining it all to my answer 
seeking 14-year-old. Heaven knows I don't have the answers!






From catlady at wicca.net  Sun Dec 14 01:45:25 2008
From: catlady at wicca.net (Catlady (Rita Prince Winston))
Date: Sun, 14 Dec 2008 01:45:25 -0000
Subject: manipulation
In-Reply-To: <ghlvkb+m2rj@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gi1ofl+ua1n@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 185161

Pippin wrote in
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/185132>:

<< People do seem to be using the word manipulation to mean any kind
of indirect or emotional persuasion, whereas I believe it applies only
when the persuader is being deceptive about his goal.

For example, if I walk into a car dealership, I fully expect that the
salesmen will do all sorts of subtle things to make me feel good about
buying a car, and those things may have more to do with my decision
than any reasoned argument...but that's not manipulation in my book,
because they're not deceiving me about their motives. >>

To me, it doesn't stop being manipulation just because you know that
this person is going to try to manipulate you. That the salesman uses
'subtle' techniques of persuasion that he intends that the customer
won't notice seems to me that the salesman is attempting to manipulate
the customer.   

However, my late mother often used to say that 'manipulate' is just a
Latin word for 'handle', and that it's considered a good thing to be
'good at handling people', so why is being 'manipulative' regarded as
so bad?

[Checking the facts here: 'handle' really does come from 'hand', but
The Online Etymology Dictionary says for 'manipulation': "c.1730, "a
method of digging ore," from Fr. manipulation, from manipule "handful"
(a pharmacists' measure), from L. manipulus "handful, sheaf," from
manus "hand" (see manual) + root of plere "to fill" (see plenary).
Sense of "skillful handling of objects" is first recorded 1826;
extended 1828 to "handling of persons" as well as objects.
Manipulative is from 1836; manipulate is from 1831."]





From bruce_alan_wilson at verizon.net  Sun Dec 14 00:00:56 2008
From: bruce_alan_wilson at verizon.net (BRUCE WILSON)
Date: Sat, 13 Dec 2008 19:00:56 -0500
Subject: CHAPDISC: DH35, KING'S CROSS
Message-ID: <D2E7E00F06DE41E1A8668BE0BE289388@d600xpp>

No: HPFGUIDX 185162

I would say that the experience was both in Harry's head and a "real" portal to the afterlife.  Harry perceived it as a railway station, specifically King's Cross, because that was the metaphor/simile/allegory which his mind siezed on; someone else might perceive it differently.

Anent the "baby", the verb Dumbledore used is significant.  We CAN do nothing.  Not we MAY or MIGHT or SHOULD or MUST, but CAN--that is, it is not possible for us to do anything.

CS Lewis discusses this in several of his essays, and works it out story wise in "The Great Divorce."   Every moral choice we make--and I am oversimplifying it--either makes us more compassionate, more generous, more merciful, more just, and in short brings us closer to God---or the reverse.  We are each on the way to becoming a glorious angelic being, or a demonic monster.  Some great saints go onward and upward, while some great sinners keep rejecting the good for so long that it becomes an engaged habit--to the point where they have forgotten that anything else is even possible.  Most of us are somewhere in between, taking three steps forward, two back.

BAW




From HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com  Sun Dec 14 17:57:29 2008
From: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com (HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com)
Date: 14 Dec 2008 17:57:29 -0000
Subject: Weekly Chat, 12/14/2008, 1:00 pm 
Message-ID: <1229277449.9.53295.m55@yahoogroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 185163

Reminder from: HPforGrownups Yahoo! Group
 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/cal

Weekly Chat
Sunday December 14, 2008
1:00 pm - 1:00 pm
(This event repeats every week.)
Location: http://www.chatzy.com/792755223574

Notes:
Just a reminder, Sunday chat starts in about one hour.

To get to the HPfGU room follow this link:
http://www.chatzy.com/792755223574

Create a user name for yourself, whatever you want
to be called.

Enter the password: hpfguchat

Click "Join Chat" on the lower right. 

Chat start times:
11 am Pacific US
12 noon Mountain US
1 pm Central US
2 pm Eastern US
7 pm UK


All Rights Reserved
 Copyright  2008 
 Yahoo! Inc.
 http://www.yahoo.com

Privacy Policy:
 http://privacy.yahoo.com/privacy/us

Terms of Service:
 http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://archive.hpfgu.org/pipermail/hpforgrownups/attachments/20081214/67376d62/attachment.html>

From kersberg at chello.nl  Sun Dec 14 19:36:02 2008
From: kersberg at chello.nl (kamion53)
Date: Sun, 14 Dec 2008 19:36:02 -0000
Subject: CHAPDISC: DH35, KING'S CROSS
In-Reply-To: <gi1fq6+78om@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gi3n72+mqf3@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 185164

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "potioncat" <willsonkmom at ...> 
wrote:
>
>  
snap
> 
> Potioncat:
> Hard to separate the image of innocence from the baby, even an ugly 
> one. Was Tom Riddle's soul always stunted? If so, did he ever have 
a 
> choice in life? Or, has his soul regressed as it was corrupted. I 
> seem to recall someone suggesting LV was a big baby--having deadly 
> tantrums. Perhaps that childish (not child-like) behavior reflected 
> his soul.
> 
> But, why did JKR go out of her way to make Riddle's soul in such an 
> image when Harry's and DD's seems very much like they are in life. 
Of 
> course, theirs hadn't been as damaged in life.
> 
> > Geoff:
> > Like you, I have problems as a Christian deciding what happens 
> > to the unsaved soul and it seems that this may be a facet 
> > of JKR's thoughts on the same topic.
> 
> Potioncat:
> JKR has said she wrestles with aspects of her faith. And this one 
is 
> a biggy! I have the hardest times explaining it all to my answer 
> seeking 14-year-old. Heaven knows I don't have the answers!
>
kamion:
I believe there is a fundemental difference between the foetuslike 
Voldemort seen in GoF and the flayed foetus observed at "Kings Cross"

In the first case Voldemort's remaining soul had invaded a real 
excisting baby or toddler.... as of all his powers he kept his power 
to posess animals after been ripped from his body.... the mental 
resistance of a baby might not be stonger to this invasion then a mer 
animal. And Voldemort's contorted soul started to corrupt the body of 
the baby-victim, would he not have gotten back a body of his own, the 
baby-body would have died soon as the animals he possessed died after 
a short time.

 

In the second case it is Voldemorts  plain and naked soul we see in a 
not material limbo, it's a non-material being which looks like a 
foetus, because most likely Voldemort started from a very, very young 
age he started tiering on his soul, not ripping it apart, but at 
least damaging it.

At the orphanage there are several nasty incidents pointing in his 
direction. 

And honest... a child that tortures animals has major mental problems.

Riddle/Voldemorts soul never had the opportunity to grow healthy in 
contrast to Harry's soul who grew up unblemished and is thereby 
manifested as a naked "perfect" body, with no scars or nearsightness. 

 

In that aspect Harry at Kings Cross comes very close to the mediaval 
image of the Resurection, where the Blessed Souls rise from the grave 
as perfect bodies at the perfect age of 33, the age Christ died and 
resurected, while the Dammed Souls are depicted with twisted bodies.

and although Harry is somewhat of a Christ figure ( as Frodo from 
LotR is too) Harry does not have scars at this scene or any stigmata 
like Christ, in Christ those are the marks of his suffering in 
sacrifice to save mankind, Harry did not suffer in his sacrifice. as 
Sirius promissed. So scars are the the flaws of his mortal life and 
don't stay on in the after-life on his purified soul. Voldemort 
however flayed another piece of his unclean soul.

the whole image is very Christian in its core. 






From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Sun Dec 14 21:54:09 2008
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Sun, 14 Dec 2008 21:54:09 -0000
Subject: Beedle the Bard SPOILERS The Warlock and his hairy heart
Message-ID: <gi3va1+7bs8@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 185165

So, the Beedle. I really love fairy tales and honestly, for me it was 
no question whether to buy them or not, because even if they would 
not have added anything to HP World, I could not wait to see how good 
JKR is at fairy tales writing.

Honestly, from the retelling of the Three brothers tale in DH I was 
not much impressed by it. I mean, no scratch that, I thought it fit 
very well in the story and advanced it, however the story on its own 
was a bit blah and so what for my taste.

After reading the Beedle, the tale of three brothers is still my 
least favorite of the five tales. However, boy I think JKR can write 
a fairy tale very well and even make them original enough. I mean, of 
course I do not think she created the wheel here, of course not, but 
to me she made those tales fresh and exciting enough.

Take Warlock and its Hairy heart for example. When I started reading 
this tale I was thinking oh, it reminds me of "A Heart of Stone" by 
Gauf (spelling?) where young Peter Munk due to his own idiocy and 
succumbing to gambling addiction in essense gives up his heart and 
ends up with stone one.

I mean, when I say reminds me, really the plot is totally different, 
it is just the separation of the heart from the body for the bad, 
very bad reason is what those tales have in common.

However, A heart of stone ends up on uplifting note, since Peter 
manages to get his heart back after hard work and lots of remorse.

Young warlock in JKR's tale, however as we learn ends up dead on the 
floor...

I, well, I definitely preferred the ending in the Heart of stone. 
However, I found Warlock to be a story very well done.

I was wondering if JKR meant to say something about Snape in this 
tale as well, especially when she mentioned young warlock's excessive 
pride and dungeons. However, after reflecting I thought that Snape 
seems to be the exact opposite to the guy in this tale. Snape seemed 
to love too much, if it is possible to love too much?

Is JKR saying that excessive love is just as bad as no love at all?

Alla




From bboyminn at yahoo.com  Mon Dec 15 01:03:51 2008
From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve)
Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2008 01:03:51 -0000
Subject: CHAPDISC: DH35, King's Cross -  Glasses
In-Reply-To: <4050D53FE01E447BBD572C9A5DBBE623@JerriPC>
Message-ID: <gi4adn+4ek5@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 185166

---  "Jerri&Dan Chase" <danjerri at ...> wrote:
>
> >> Carol:
> >> <SNIP of the whole post>
> >> Why do you think that Harry isn't wearing his glasses and 
> >> doesn't need them in this chapter? What do the glasses 
> >> symbolize?
> >
> > Alla:
> >
> > Well Geoff already mentioned about Harry being able to see
> > clearly finally, so that part of metaphor is pretty clear to
> > me, however what is more interesting to me is that you 
> > mentioned that Dumbledore still does have his glasses. ..
> 
> And Jerri responds:
> And I simply thought that as this was "real" AND "in Harry's
> head" that Dumbledore had his glasses because Harry's image 
> of DD included his glasses.
> 
> The issue of glasses in the JKR wizarding world has always 
> been a bit incomplete to me, ..., why can't eyes be improved 
> so that one doesn't need glasses. ...  LOTS of characters 
> have glasses,...
> 
> ...
> 
> Jerri
>


bboyminn:

Lots of characters HAVE glasses, but that doesn't mean that
lots of characters NEED glasses. The glasses may just be 
part of image. Glasses signify that someone is old and wise,
and it seems a good image to adopt. 

However, if poor eyesight is a problem, then it certainly 
might be able to be corrected. It is afterall just a 
mishappening of the eye ball. But, it may also be that it is
too minor a problem to deal with by magic. And again, there
is always the image factor to consider. 

Also, keep in mind that most cases of nearsightedness can be
completely, or nearly so, without glasses or eye surgery. There
is a series of exercises called the 'Bates Method' (I think)
whereby any one can correct their own vision. But most people 
are too lazy to do it, as it requires many hours of eye 
excercises. It is much easier to simply get glasses, contacts,
or have your eyes lazer corrected. 

So, we know people have glasses, but we don't know that they
need them. 

Just a thought.

Steve/bboyminn




From zgirnius at yahoo.com  Mon Dec 15 02:16:00 2008
From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara)
Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2008 02:16:00 -0000
Subject: Beedle the Bard SPOILERS The Warlock and his hairy heart
In-Reply-To: <gi3va1+7bs8@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gi4el0+jrb7@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 185167

> Alla:
> Take Warlock and its Hairy heart for example. When I started 
reading 
> this tale I was thinking oh, it reminds me of "A Heart of Stone" by 
> Gauf (spelling?) where young Peter Munk due to his own idiocy and 
> succumbing to gambling addiction in essense gives up his heart and 
> ends up with stone one.

Zara:
Wilhelm Hauff. The story to which Alla refers may be found here, you 
may need to copy the whole URL and stick it into your browser's 
address line rather than just clicking on a broken link:

http://digital.library.upenn.edu/women/mcdonnell/hauff/hauff.html

> Alla: 
> I was wondering if JKR meant to say something about Snape in this 
> tale as well, especially when she mentioned young warlock's 
excessive 
> pride and dungeons. However, after reflecting I thought that Snape 
> seems to be the exact opposite to the guy in this tale. Snape 
seemed 
> to love too much, if it is possible to love too much?
> 
> Is JKR saying that excessive love is just as bad as no love at all?

Zara:
No, I definitely don't think so. His love is what saves him, after 
all. (Not in the sense of making him safer, in the sense of 
preventing him from living and dying a Death Eater). I also don't 
think he's at all similar in terms of his motivations. The warlock 
was born to privilege and his pride led him to think he did not need 
anyone.  As a poor, lonely young boy, Snape sought out a friend.
Snape's eventual tendency to suggest he might consider loving 
feelings a weakness were not based on supercilious amusement at the 
romantic travails of others, but his own personal experience of such 
problems.

I suppose if one did want to make a parallel to the warlock, one 
could compare his joining the DEs and throwing himself wholeheartedly 
into his interest in the Dark Arts as a young man with the spell the 
warlock used to lock away his heart, except in Snape's case it was 
too late, the dratted thing had already fallen in love when he tried.






From zanooda2 at yahoo.com  Mon Dec 15 06:08:28 2008
From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2)
Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2008 06:08:28 -0000
Subject: CHAPDISC: DH35, KING'S CROSS
In-Reply-To: <gi3n72+mqf3@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gi4s8s+dkvb@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 185168

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "kamion53" <kersberg at ...> wrote:

> I believe there is a fundemental difference between the foetuslike 
> Voldemort seen in GoF and the flayed foetus observed at "Kings 
> Cross". In the first case Voldemort's remaining soul had 
> invaded a real excisting baby or toddler.... 


zanooda:

I'm sorry, but I just can't agree with you that LV's rudimentary body 
in GoF was some real possessed baby. Just to read the description - a 
snake-like face with the read eyes, scaly-looking reddish black skin - 
yuck, it's not a real baby!!! Besides, LV later explains to the DEs how 
Wormtail created him this body using unicorn blood, Nagini's venom and 
some dark spells (p.656 Am.ed.). It's too late now to write more, but 
it just can't be a real baby!




From a_svirn at yahoo.com  Tue Dec 16 14:47:05 2008
From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn)
Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2008 14:47:05 -0000
Subject: Beedle the Bard SPOILERS The Warlock and his hairy heart
In-Reply-To: <gi3va1+7bs8@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gi8f19+hbej@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 185169

> Alla wrote:
>
> So, the Beedle. I really love fairy tales and honestly, for me it 
was 
> no question whether to buy them or not, because even if they would 
> not have added anything to HP World, I could not wait to see how 
good 
> JKR is at fairy tales writing.
> 
> Honestly, from the retelling of the Three brothers tale in DH I was 
> not much impressed by it. I mean, no scratch that, I thought it fit 
> very well in the story and advanced it, however the story on its 
own 
> was a bit blah and so what for my taste.
> 
> After reading the Beedle, the tale of three brothers is still my 
> least favorite of the five tales. However, boy I think JKR can 
write 
> a fairy tale very well and even make them original enough. I mean, 
of 
> course I do not think she created the wheel here, of course not, 
but 
> to me she made those tales fresh and exciting enough.

> 
> Take Warlock and its Hairy heart for example. When I started 
reading 
> this tale I was thinking oh, it reminds me of "A Heart of Stone" by 
> Gauf (spelling?) where young Peter Munk due to his own idiocy and 
> succumbing to gambling addiction in essense gives up his heart and 
> ends up with stone one.

a_svirn:
They are original only in the sense that the imagery is straight out 
of the Harry Potter world. But plot-wise and "moral-wise", so to 
speak, they are quite ordinary and bland. Babbity-rabbity, for 
instance, seems to be derivative from the "Emperor's clothes" ? it's 
like Andersen set in the Potterverse.  As for the "Hairy Heart", I am 
with Dumbledore on that one: the whole thing seems like a rerun of 
the Horcrux theme (or vice versa) ? the search of invulnerability at 
the expense of humanity. It reminds me not so much of "A Heart of 
Stone", but of ye good olde Kaschei the Immortal. 

I think the best part of the book is actually Dumbledore's 
commentary, and the best part of the commentary is its sloppiness and 
patent insincerity. The latter is especially manifest in his notes on 
the Hollows and particularly on the Elder Wand. He writes something 
to the effect that The Wand awe-inspiring reputation is manifestly at 
variance with its own history. And yet, we know that not only he 
craved it as a boy, but he actually claimed it after defeating 
Grindenwald ? so he doesn't seem to have listend to his own advice. 
Or he thought it applies to anyone, but himself. 

It seems to me that Rowling became somewhat obsessed with Dumbledore 
in the last two HP books, and "Tales" is simply another way to 
revisit that character. Certainly, his "notes" provide a fascinating 
insight into the sheer convolution of his way of reasoning ? the 
depth of soul-searching and self-deception behind the bland and 
clich?d "and the moral of this story is
." 

a_svirn.




From foxmoth at qnet.com  Thu Dec 18 15:17:08 2008
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2008 15:17:08 -0000
Subject: Beedle the Bard SPOILERS The Warlock and his hairy heart
In-Reply-To: <gi8f19+hbej@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gidphk+5bdp@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 185172

A_svirn:
> I think the best part of the book is actually Dumbledore's 
> commentary, and the best part of the commentary is its sloppiness
and  patent insincerity. The latter is especially manifest in his
notes on  the Hollows and particularly on the Elder Wand. He writes
something  to the effect that The Wand awe-inspiring reputation is
manifestly at> variance with its own history. And yet, we know that
not only he  craved it as a boy, but he actually claimed it after
defeating  Grindenwald ? so he doesn't seem to have listend to his own
advice. 
> Or he thought it applies to anyone, but himself. 

Pippin:
DD is supposed to be writing about two years before the events on the
tower, so he is simply writing with the benefit of hindsight.  JKR
says coyly in her preface that it is not clear who Dumbledore was
writing for, his own satisfaction or future publication.  But I think
that's a puzzle for the reader: JKR tells us this commentary was found
among Dumbledore's papers left to the Hogwarts Archives. And
therefore, IMO, it was intended to be read by none other than
Dumbledore's chosen successor: Severus Snape!

You see the cleverness of it -- if the Elder Wand has lost its power
as Dumbledore intended, then Snape will read the commentary for ToTB
at face value. But if the Elder Wand still works, Snape will realize
from the commentary what he has, its perils and how to deal with it.  
Snape, of course, knows that Harry Potter has inherited from James a
uniquely durable invisibility cloak and may also recognize from
Dumbledore's closing comment what it was about the ring that proved so
tempting. 
 

Pippin





From montavilla47 at yahoo.com  Thu Dec 18 15:46:58 2008
From: montavilla47 at yahoo.com (montavilla47)
Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2008 15:46:58 -0000
Subject: Beedle the Bard SPOILERS The Warlock and his hairy heart
In-Reply-To: <gidphk+5bdp@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gidr9i+8uf1@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 185173

 Pippin:
> But I think
> that's a puzzle for the reader: JKR tells us this commentary was found
> among Dumbledore's papers left to the Hogwarts Archives. And
> therefore, IMO, it was intended to be read by none other than
> Dumbledore's chosen successor: Severus Snape!
> 
> You see the cleverness of it -- if the Elder Wand has lost its power
> as Dumbledore intended, then Snape will read the commentary for ToTB
> at face value. But if the Elder Wand still works, Snape will realize
> from the commentary what he has, its perils and how to deal with it.  
> Snape, of course, knows that Harry Potter has inherited from James a
> uniquely durable invisibility cloak and may also recognize from
> Dumbledore's closing comment what it was about the ring that proved so
> tempting. 

Forgive a question from someone who has yet to read the book.
But why should Dumbledore need to leave any puzzles for Snape? 
Dumbledore is sitting right there on the wall, ready to explain 
any part of the Hallows to Snape at any time that he chooses.

Since he chooses not to explain any of it, doesn't that 
indicate that he didn't consider it necessary for Snape to
know any of it?

Montavilla47





From foxmoth at qnet.com  Thu Dec 18 17:30:19 2008
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2008 17:30:19 -0000
Subject: Beedle the Bard SPOILERS The Warlock and his hairy heart
In-Reply-To: <gidr9i+8uf1@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gie1bb+5tbb@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 185174

Montavilla:
> Forgive a question from someone who has yet to read the book.
> But why should Dumbledore need to leave any puzzles for Snape? 
> Dumbledore is sitting right there on the wall, ready to explain 
> any part of the Hallows to Snape at any time that he chooses.
> 
> Since he chooses not to explain any of it, doesn't that 
> indicate that he didn't consider it necessary for Snape to
> know any of it?
> 

Pippin:
Unless Snape stuns all the other portraits first, it won't be a
private conversation. This is Dumbledore, who doesn't like putting all
his eggs in one basket, is obsessed with secrecy especially concerning
the Hallows, and is inordinately fond of puzzles and of showing off
how clever he is. Of *course* he'd leave a puzzle for Snape -- he left
one for Harry, didn't he? 

Pippin






From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Thu Dec 18 21:07:51 2008
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2008 21:07:51 -0000
Subject: Beedle the Bard SPOILERS The Warlock and his hairy heart
In-Reply-To: <gi8f19+hbej@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <giee37+fq5f@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 185175

_svirn:
They are original only in the sense that the imagery is straight out
of the Harry Potter world. But plot-wise and "moral-wise", so to
speak, they are quite ordinary and bland. 

Alla:
OOOOO, nice to see you.

I did not say that JKR invented the wheel with those tales of course; 
however I would not call them ordinary and bland either. I mean, to 
me there are only very few morality lessons in the fables and fairy 
tales and the new plot, new imagery is the only way to make them 
fresh.

I mean, fairy tales teach kids and adults alike to be nice to the 
people around them, be courageous, and be smart, judge people based 
on what is inside instead of outside
 What else? I mean, I am sure if 
I think few more minutes, I would think of three or four other 
lessons, but besides that? How many of them can we count?

So, within fairy tales constraints I do like JKR's creativity with 
those.

A_svirn:
Babbity-rabbity, for
instance, seems to be derivative from the "Emperor's clothes" ? it's
like Andersen set in the Potterverse.

Alla:

I don't know, does it? I mean, I thought of "A heart of stone" as I 
said, when I read "Warlock", I really did not think of "Emperor's 
clothes" when I read Babbity. I mean, come to think of it, of course 
there are similarities, however it feels to me that Anderson was 
taking much more satirical approach toward the King, who failed to 
see his dress maker for what he was and towards the crowd. It feels 
to me that JKR pities the king more than mocks him AND I am not sure 
I know who is the analogue of the Babbity in Anderson's tale. The 
boy? But we know nothing about him and JKR concentrates on Babbity a 
lot and develops her quite a lot for a tale, no?

A_svirn:
As for the "Hairy Heart", I am
with Dumbledore on that one: the whole thing seems like a rerun of
the Horcrux theme (or vice versa) ? the search of invulnerability at
the expense of humanity. It reminds me not so much of "A Heart of
Stone", but of ye good olde Kaschei the Immortal.

Alla:

Of course there is a horcrux theme, but again, I felt it was nicely 
blended in the teaching story for wizarding kids and heh, funny you 
mention Kaschei, I did not get that vibe at all. And I read the 
Scandinavian tale with a very strong Kaschei theme just a few days 
ago. To each their own of course, I did like those stories a lot, 
especially Warlock and Fountain.

I mean, what is Fountain in essence? Does it teach anything new? Of 
course not, just tells us to do good things for the friends and you 
will be rewarded, yes? But this is one morality lesson that I can say 
that I remember often enough and use often enough, so to hear it 
being retold in WW imagery was nice.

I actually like the Death and three brothers the least of the lot. 
Maybe because I know it well by now, but it seemed to me to be the 
least imaginative of them.

A_svirn:
I think the best part of the book is actually Dumbledore's
commentary, and the best part of the commentary is its sloppiness and
patent insincerity. <SNIP>

Alla:
I enjoyed Dumbledore's comments too and I share Pippin's POV I think 
on why it was written the way it was.

JMO,

Alla






From a_svirn at yahoo.com  Fri Dec 19 03:59:34 2008
From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn)
Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2008 03:59:34 -0000
Subject: Beedle the Bard SPOILERS The Warlock and his hairy heart
In-Reply-To: <giee37+fq5f@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gif676+rgcn@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 185177

> Alla:
> OOOOO, nice to see you.

a_svirn:
Thanks! Good to be back.

> Alla: 
> A_svirn:
> Babbity-rabbity, for
> instance, seems to be derivative from the "Emperor's clothes" ? it's
> like Andersen set in the Potterverse.
> 
> Alla:
> 
> I don't know, does it? I mean, I thought of "A heart of stone" as I 
> said, when I read "Warlock", I really did not think of "Emperor's 
> clothes" when I read Babbity. I mean, come to think of it, of 
course 
> there are similarities, however it feels to me that Anderson was 
> taking much more satirical approach toward the King, who failed to 
> see his dress maker for what he was and towards the crowd. It feels 
> to me that JKR pities the king more than mocks him AND I am not 
sure 
> I know who is the analogue of the Babbity in Anderson's tale. 

a_svirn:
Well, of cause Babbity herself is purely Potteresque. But is there 
really anything more to it than mocking and gleefully exposing the 
stupid muggle (!) King? Rowling even put "cackling" into the title 
for crying (cackling) out loud. That's a sort of sound one makes 
while mocking others. 
a_svirn.







From a_svirn at yahoo.com  Fri Dec 19 04:03:03 2008
From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn)
Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2008 04:03:03 -0000
Subject: Beedle the Bard SPOILERS The Warlock and his hairy heart
In-Reply-To: <giee37+fq5f@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gif6do+rcoq@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 185178

> A_svirn:
> > I think the best part of the book is actually Dumbledore's
> > commentary, and the best part of the commentary is its sloppiness
> and patent insincerity. The latter is especially manifest in his
> notes on the Hollows and particularly on the Elder Wand. He writes
> something to the effect that The Wand awe-inspiring reputation is
> manifestly at> variance with its own history. And yet, we know that
> not only he craved it as a boy, but he actually claimed it after
> defeating Grindenwald ? so he doesn't seem to have listend to his
own
> advice.
> > Or he thought it applies to anyone, but himself.
>
> Pippin:
> DD is supposed to be writing about two years before the events on
the
> tower, so he is simply writing with the benefit of hindsight.


a_svirn:
Do we know when he wrote it? I only read the book once, so I must
have missed it. However, in any case, I don't quite see how
Dumbledore had benefited of hindsight. He still owned and used the
Elder Wand in the end, didn't he? Even more telling, after stating
unequivocally that bringing back the dead is impossible and a very
bad idea besides (and even quoting some French sage in support of
this statement) he did try to use the Stone. (I believe there is a
quite pattern emerging here: he also deprived the Potters of the
Cloak while knowing full well that it might come in useful for anyone
who is hiding from Voldemort.)

> Pippin:
> JKR tells us this commentary was found
> among Dumbledore's papers left to the Hogwarts Archives. And
> therefore, IMO, it was intended to be read by none other than
> Dumbledore's chosen successor: Severus Snape!

a_svirn:
Quite apart the fact that there is no indication in canon that the
notes were intended for Snape, I really don't see of what possible
use they could have been for him. A case could be made that they
could be of *some* use for Harry, but only in the most general sense ?
as a warning. Then again, such warning could only have confused the
poor boy even more, because it would have seemed to be at variance
with the whole Hermione-to-find-clues-about-the Hollows-which-might-
prove-useful idea. If Harry were to listen Dumbledore the
Commentator, he would have to tell Hermione to forget about the
Hollows because they are apparently no good to anyone (except for the
Cloak that Harry had in his possession already). And if that's what
Dumbledore wanted all along one wonders why he didn't bequeath the
notes as well. (Then again, in that case the two parts of the legacy
would have simply cancelled each other. Ah, well.)

> Pippin:
> You see the cleverness of it -- if the Elder Wand has lost its power
> as Dumbledore intended, then Snape will read the commentary for ToTB
> at face value. But if the Elder Wand still works, Snape will realize
> from the commentary what he has, its perils and how to deal with
it.

a_svirn:
And how exactly is that? Dumbledore didn't *deal* with it in any way.
He simply used the Wand until it betrayed him as it had done with
each and every of his predecessors.

> Pippin:
> Snape, of course, knows that Harry Potter has inherited from James a
> uniquely durable invisibility cloak and may also recognize from
> Dumbledore's closing comment what it was about the ring that proved
so
> tempting.
>

a_svirn:
Then again, Snape neither had the ring (Harry did), nor was tempted
by it. So it seems like a moot point where he is concerned.
a_svirn.






From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Sat Dec 20 02:31:44 2008
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2008 02:31:44 -0000
Subject: Beedle the Bard SPOILERS Babbity rabbity
In-Reply-To: <gif676+rgcn@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gihleg+perc@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 185179

> a_svirn:
> Well, of cause Babbity herself is purely Potteresque. But is there 
> really anything more to it than mocking and gleefully exposing the 
> stupid muggle (!) King? Rowling even put "cackling" into the title 
> for crying (cackling) out loud. That's a sort of sound one makes 
> while mocking others. 


Alla:

So I went and reread Babbity, while specifically keeping "King's 
clothes" on the back of my mind.

I have to agree, Muggle King is totally being mocked, I do not know 
where I found pity or anything else.

However, however, I still do not get nearly the same feel as I get 
from Anderson's tale. I mean, Rowling makes a hero out of Babbity, 
doesn't she?

She saves the witches and wizards from the very real persecution, 
does she not?

>From Anderson's tale I get : mocking of the king and his adoring 
crowd of subjects, who because they worship him or afraid of him are 
afraid of pointing the obvious. Come to think of it, maybe I ought to 
reverse my initial argument. Maybe Anderson pities his King more, 
while also mocking him? I mean, Andreson's King is not really 
dangerous, no? He is not going around forbidding other dressmakers to 
do their craft.

With Rowling's tale, I get more of the foolishness transforming into 
the very real oppression and danger and Babbity fighting and winning, 
because of her creativity.

So, to make a long story short, yes, I acknowledge substantial plot 
similarities, no I do not believe it is derivative and it does not 
give me the same feel at all.

Oh and about the name, I am not hundred percent sure, but I believe 
that JKR said somewhere that she came up with the names before she 
decided to write a book or something like that and that it was the 
hardest for her to come with the tale for Babbity. I could be wrong.


JMO,

Alla




From a_svirn at yahoo.com  Sat Dec 20 20:14:13 2008
From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn)
Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2008 20:14:13 -0000
Subject: Beedle the Bard SPOILERS Babbity rabbity
In-Reply-To: <gihleg+perc@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gijjml+afse@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 185180

> Alla:
> 
> So I went and reread Babbity, while specifically keeping "King's 
> clothes" on the back of my mind.
> 
> I have to agree, Muggle King is totally being mocked, I do not know 
> where I found pity or anything else.
> 
> However, however, I still do not get nearly the same feel as I get 
> from Anderson's tale. I mean, Rowling makes a hero out of Babbity, 
> doesn't she?
> 
> She saves the witches and wizards from the very real persecution, 
> does she not?
> 
> From Anderson's tale I get : mocking of the king and his adoring 
> crowd of subjects, who because they worship him or afraid of him 
are 
> afraid of pointing the obvious. Come to think of it, maybe I ought 
to 
> reverse my initial argument. Maybe Anderson pities his King more, 
> while also mocking him? I mean, Andreson's King is not really 
> dangerous, no? He is not going around forbidding other dressmakers 
to 
> do their craft.
> 
> With Rowling's tale, I get more of the foolishness transforming 
into 
> the very real oppression and danger and Babbity fighting and 
winning, 
> because of her creativity.
> 
> So, to make a long story short, yes, I acknowledge substantial plot 
> similarities, no I do not believe it is derivative and it does not 
> give me the same feel at all.

a_svirn:
It does not give the same feel to me either. My point is that the 
plot is essentially the same, but the Universe where it is set this 
time is different. Which in turn makes the central conflict about 
something different as well. Where the Andersen's story 
metaphorically juxtaposes child's innocence and grown-up world of 
sophisticated lies and conformism (with the latter being exposed in 
the end along with the stupid Emperor), Babbity is a parable about 
inferior and envious muggles persecuting superior (yet somehow 
inexplicably vulnerable) wizards with the latter eventually 
triumphing and exposing muggle inferiority and ignorance while doing 
so. Nothing metaphorical about Babbity and the muggle king ? we even 
learn from Dumbledore that they both actually existed. 
a_svirn.




From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Sat Dec 20 23:51:20 2008
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2008 23:51:20 -0000
Subject: Beedle the Bard SPOILERS Babbity rabbity
In-Reply-To: <gijjml+afse@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gik0do+k2cg@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 185181

> a_svirn:
<SNIP>
>Where the Andersen's story 
> metaphorically juxtaposes child's innocence and grown-up world of 
> sophisticated lies and conformism (with the latter being exposed in 
> the end along with the stupid Emperor), Babbity is a parable about 
> inferior and envious muggles persecuting superior (yet somehow 
> inexplicably vulnerable) wizards with the latter eventually 
> triumphing and exposing muggle inferiority and ignorance while 
doing 
> so. Nothing metaphorical about Babbity and the muggle king ? we 
even 
> learn from Dumbledore that they both actually existed. 

Alla:

I agree with your description of Anderson's story of course, however 
I am not sure I can agree with the description of Babbity where you 
say that there is nothing metaphorical about it.

I mean, there are no wizards, right? And Babbity and Muggle king do 
not actually exist. And JKR said that she of course does not believe 
in magic. I mean, I am stating this, no matter how obvious it is for 
you and me just to say that to me Wizards are metaphor for the folks 
who can do amazing things, so to me Babbity is about well, people who 
are fighting against stupidity and oppression and who are winning it.


JMO,

Alla




From HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com  Sun Dec 21 17:57:07 2008
From: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com (HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com)
Date: 21 Dec 2008 17:57:07 -0000
Subject: Weekly Chat, 12/21/2008, 1:00 pm 
Message-ID: <1229882227.12.56655.m56@yahoogroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 185182

Reminder from: HPforGrownups Yahoo! Group
 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/cal

Weekly Chat
Sunday December 21, 2008
1:00 pm - 1:00 pm
(This event repeats every week.)
Location: http://www.chatzy.com/792755223574

Notes:
Just a reminder, Sunday chat starts in about one hour.

To get to the HPfGU room follow this link:
http://www.chatzy.com/792755223574

Create a user name for yourself, whatever you want
to be called.

Enter the password: hpfguchat

Click "Join Chat" on the lower right. 

Chat start times:
11 am Pacific US
12 noon Mountain US
1 pm Central US
2 pm Eastern US
7 pm UK


All Rights Reserved
 Copyright  2008 
 Yahoo! Inc.
 http://www.yahoo.com

Privacy Policy:
 http://privacy.yahoo.com/privacy/us

Terms of Service:
 http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://archive.hpfgu.org/pipermail/hpforgrownups/attachments/20081221/b246c578/attachment.html>

From catlady at wicca.net  Mon Dec 22 00:16:39 2008
From: catlady at wicca.net (Catlady (Rita Prince Winston))
Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2008 00:16:39 -0000
Subject: discussion of Beedle tales
Message-ID: <gimm97+pq9n@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 185183

Zara wrote in
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/185167>:

<< The story to which Alla refers may be found here (snip):

<http://digital.library.upenn.edu/women/mcdonnell/hauff/hauff.html> >>

Thank you for pointing me to this resource. As it is 'A Celebration of
Women Writers', I suppose 'Wilhelm' Hauff is a pseudonym?

a_svirn wrote in
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/185169>:

<< They are original only in the sense that the imagery is straight
out of the Harry Potter world. But plot-wise and "moral-wise", so to
speak, they are quite ordinary and bland. Babbity-rabbity, for
instance, seems to be derivative from the "Emperor's clothes" ? it's
like Andersen set in the Potterverse. As for the "Hairy Heart", I am
with Dumbledore on that one: the whole thing seems like a rerun of the
Horcrux theme (or vice versa) ? the search of invulnerability at the
expense of humanity. It reminds me not so much of "A Heart of Stone",
but of ye good olde Kaschei the Immortal. >>

That's a bit like the proverb that there are only 40, or 32, or 14
stories in the world. The love story, the revenge story, the prophecy
comes true because of attempts to avoid it story...

<< He writes something to the effect that The Wand awe-inspiring
reputation is manifestly at variance with its own history. And yet, we
know that not only he craved it as a boy, but he actually claimed it
after defeating Grindenwald  >>

Even if the  'awe-inspiring reputation' that this wand can never be
defeated in combat is false, it is still a very powerful wand, and
therefore worth having. The part of his own commentary that DD maybe
should have paid attention to is about Godelet who wrote Magick Moste
Evile, and claimed to have learned so many Dark spells from his wand.
He should have been concerned lest the Elder Wand turn him evil.

It is not clear to me that the reputation that this wand can never be
defeated in combat is false. Its first transfer came from cutting the
owner's throat while he was passed out drunk, not combat. Its latest
transfer came from Draco casting Expelliarmus on DD while DD was
making no attempt at wandwork: just talking is not combat. And Rowling
certainly provided the possibility that DD took it from Grindelwald by
trickery rather than by that great duel to which Elphias referred.

<< It seems to me that Rowling became somewhat obsessed with
Dumbledore in the last two HP books >>

As far as DD is the Puppetmaster moving the characters' actions and
manipulating their feelings, Rowling (as the author) *is* DD.

a_svirn wrote in
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/185178>:

<< Snape neither had the ring (Harry did), nor was tempted by it. >>

But if Snape had had the ring, he might have been tempted by it. His
grief that Lily is dead is certainly move *obvious* than DD's grief
that Ariana is dead, and if she came back to life, perhaps she would
thank Snape for having protected Harry all these years.





From a_svirn at yahoo.com  Mon Dec 22 14:22:20 2008
From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn)
Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2008 14:22:20 -0000
Subject: Beedle the Bard SPOILERS Babbity rabbity
In-Reply-To: <gik0do+k2cg@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gio7qs+alfi@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 185184

> Alla:
> 
> I agree with your description of Anderson's story of course, 
however 
> I am not sure I can agree with the description of Babbity where you 
> say that there is nothing metaphorical about it.
> 
> I mean, there are no wizards, right? And Babbity and Muggle king do 
> not actually exist. And JKR said that she of course does not 
believe 
> in magic. I mean, I am stating this, no matter how obvious it is 
for 
> you and me just to say that to me Wizards are metaphor for the 
folks 
> who can do amazing things, so to me Babbity is about well, people 
who 
> are fighting against stupidity and oppression and who are winning 
it.
> 

a_svirn:
Ah, but there are wizards in the Potterverse, and this book is 
supposed to exist in the wizarding world. And even if you want to 
take it separately, "Babbity" would still be the least "metaphorical" 
story of the lot. I can easily imagine "Fountain of Fair Fortune" ? 
the all times favourite, according to Dumbledore ? outside the HP 
Universe not only because wizards (or, rather, witches) and muggles 
triumph together in the end, but also because they triumph thanks to 
their human qualities ? loyalty, courage, determination and love, 
rather than magic itself. "Three Brothers" is also heavily laden with 
symbolism while the "Hairy Heart" is one elaborate, if gruesome 
metaphor. It is not surprising to learn that it has become a code-
phrase for "wizards who wouldn't commit". But I have trouble reading 
the "Hopping Pot" or "Babbity" outside the context of the muggle-
wizard relationship. Yes, it is all about stupidity and oppression, 
but, also, about a very specific kind of oppression. This is not one 
of those cunning pauper vs. cruel King sort of stories, since Babbity 
got the better of the King through her magic rather than wits. 
Moreover, if we factor her cunning into the equation the whole thing 
would look like an elaborate piece of muggle-baiting. And after 
reading Dumbledore's notes one could even be pardoned for wondering 
whether she, perhaps, was a secret French agent who helped to reverse 
the fortunes of the English in the Hundred Years' War (wouldn't be 
the only witch to work for Charles V, come to think of it).  

> Catlady:
> It is not clear to me that the reputation that this wand can never 
be
> defeated in combat is false.

a_svirn:
That was Dumbledore's own conclusion and I for once in the agreement 
with him. 

> Catlady:
> Its latest
> transfer came from Draco casting Expelliarmus on DD while DD was
> making no attempt at wandwork

a_svirn:
Neither was Harry during his flight from the Dursley's, yet *his* 
wand felt like helping him at the time.

> a_svirn wrote in
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/185178>:
> 
> << Snape neither had the ring (Harry did), nor was tempted by it. >>

> Catlady:
> But if Snape had had the ring, he might have been tempted by it. His
> grief that Lily is dead is certainly move *obvious* than DD's grief
> that Ariana is dead, and if she came back to life, perhaps she would
> thank Snape for having protected Harry all these years.

a_svirn:
As I said, it is a moot point, since Snape could not have had the 
ring, even if he had tried to steal the snitch. 
a_svirn.




From s_ings at yahoo.com  Thu Dec 25 05:09:42 2008
From: s_ings at yahoo.com (Sheryll Townsend)
Date: Thu, 25 Dec 2008 05:09:42 -0000
Subject: Happy Holidays from your HPFGU List Elves
Message-ID: <giv4im+tidd@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 185185

*Rylly Elf wanders into the room, Santa hat askew and butterbeer in 
hand*

Umm... excuse me good misses and sirs. We is having a party and was 
wondering if you would care to join us in a glass of butterbeer. We is 
celebrating the holidays and understand that some of you have holidays 
to celebrate, too. 

List Elves appreciate all our list members, without you we would be 
List Elves looking for work. In appreciation for all you do to make the 
HPFGU family such a fun place, we'd like to offer a toast to all of you 
and your families at this celebratory (see, I is knowing big words!) 
time of year.

*passes around plates of goodies and opens the bar to get butterbeer 
for all*

The List Elves wish all our members the best of the holiday season and 
many blessings for the coming New Year!





From g2rm2002 at yahoo.com  Thu Dec 25 15:37:19 2008
From: g2rm2002 at yahoo.com (Gloria Rodriguez)
Date: Thu, 25 Dec 2008 15:37:19 -0000
Subject: Happy Holidays from your HPFGU List Elves
In-Reply-To: <giv4im+tidd@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gj09bf+gk17@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 185186

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Sheryll Townsend" <s_ings at ...>
wrote:
> <snip>
>
> The List Elves wish all our members the best of the
> holiday season and many blessings for the coming New Year!
>

Happy holidays to you, too!!! And thank you for serving us
so well.




From willsonkmom at msn.com  Thu Dec 25 19:52:28 2008
From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat)
Date: Thu, 25 Dec 2008 19:52:28 -0000
Subject: Happy Holidays from your HPFGU List Elves
In-Reply-To: <giv4im+tidd@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gj0o9s+2k8d@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 185187


> *Rylly Elf wanders into the room, Santa hat askew and butterbeer in 
> hand*
 
> *passes around plates of goodies and opens the bar to get butterbeer 
> for all*
> 
> The List Elves wish all our members the best of the holiday season 
and 
> many blessings for the coming New Year!
>


Potioncat:
Happy Holidays to all! (raises a glass of butterbeer) and now for a 
sing along!

"God rest ye merry Hippogriphs...."






From zanooda2 at yahoo.com  Fri Dec 26 19:20:34 2008
From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2)
Date: Fri, 26 Dec 2008 19:20:34 -0000
Subject: Beedle the Bard SPOILERS\Animagi commentary
In-Reply-To: <gi3va1+7bs8@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gj3aq2+g970@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 185188

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214"
<dumbledore11214 at ...> wrote:

> So, the Beedle. I really love fairy tales and honestly, 
> for me it was no question whether to buy them or not, 
> because even if they would not have added anything to HP 
> World, I could not wait to see how good  JKR is at fairy 
> tales writing.


Are we supposed to consider this book canon :-)? I mean DD's
commentary mostly. He says that a wizard (*not* an Animugus)
transformed into an animal becomes an animal completely, without any
memory of ever being a human. If so, I don't really understand what
was the point for Fake!Moody to transform Draco Malfoy into a ferret
as a punishment. 

If Ferret!Draco didn't remember ever being a wizard, then human Draco
wouldn't remember being a ferret, right? He must have felt the whole
thing just as if he suddenly fell to the ground, that's all :-). He
could find out what really happened only if someone told him, so what
was the point of transforming him?

Also, when Viktor Krum transformed himself into a shark, he remembered
very well who he was and what mission he had to accomplish. Was it
because he only partially transformed? It's not very clear to me.


zanooda, who was given a Collector's edition of the book for Christmas...





From foxmoth at qnet.com  Fri Dec 26 19:49:14 2008
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Fri, 26 Dec 2008 19:49:14 -0000
Subject: Beedle the Bard SPOILERS\Animagi commentary
In-Reply-To: <gj3aq2+g970@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gj3cfq+r30j@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 185189

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "zanooda2" <zanooda2 at ...> wrote:

> 
> If Ferret!Draco didn't remember ever being a wizard, then human
Draco wouldn't remember being a ferret, right? 

Pippin:
I don't think that follows. A transformed werewolf doesn't ordinarily
remember its human state, but does have memories of what it did while
it was transformed. Lupin, for example, knows that he didn't eat
anything while he was in the Forbidden Forest. Similarly, IMO, the
ferret wouldn't remember that it had ever been a wizard, but the
wizard might remember that it had been a ferret. 


Zanooda:
> Also, when Viktor Krum transformed himself into a shark, he remembered
> very well who he was and what mission he had to accomplish. Was it
> because he only partially transformed? It's not very clear to me.

Pippin:
Bagman's commentary is that Krum's transfiguration was incomplete. It
might have been an incomplete animagus transformation.

Pippin





From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Sat Dec 27 05:01:46 2008
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Sat, 27 Dec 2008 05:01:46 -0000
Subject: Beedle the Bard SPOILERS\Animagi commentary
In-Reply-To: <gj3cfq+r30j@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gj4crq+hsed@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 185190

Zanooda:
> > Also, when Viktor Krum transformed himself into a shark, he
remembered very well who he was and what mission he had to accomplish.
Was it because he only partially transformed? It's not very clear to me.
> 
> Pippin:
> Bagman's commentary is that Krum's transfiguration was incomplete.
It might have been an incomplete animagus transformation.

Carol responds:

We'd know if he was a registered Animagus--or an illegal one. (Imagine
being a shark Animagus--a fish out of water for sure!) IIRC, he used a
wand to Transfigure himself, which mean it wasn't true Animagic (or
whatever the proper term is).

FWIW, I've always thought that the incomplete Transfiguration was
deliberate. After all, with a shark's head, he can breathe under water
(and scare any merpeople or grindylows that might try to attack him),
but he also needs hands to rescue Hermione. Presumably, shark head or
not, he retains his own mind or he wouldn't remember his task, not to
mention that the hostages might end up as his dinner.

Carol, too tired to remember the point of this post




From jnoyl at aim.com  Sat Dec 27 14:30:47 2008
From: jnoyl at aim.com (JLyon)
Date: Sat, 27 Dec 2008 07:30:47 -0700
Subject: Beedle the Bard SPOILERS\Animagi commentary
Message-ID: <9A56E346-379C-4C75-8B2B-797926F2910F@aim.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 185191

I always considered Krum's transformation to be exactly what he was  
attempting. How could you rescue your hostage as a shark? All he  
needed was a way to breathe underwater and his transformation allowed  
that while maintaining hands and legs. The mistake so many made was  
NOT bringing a knife with them or using their wands to cut the ropes.
What I found so annoying, along with about a hundred other things in  
the series, was that Herms and Harry could find no record of the  
bubblehead charm in all their searching but a year later everyone in  
school knew it.
Personally, Harry's use of gillyweed was the only method that would  
keep someone from freezing to death after an hour in the loch in the  
middle of winter.
Also, has anyone figured out how the spectators whiled away their  
time during the second and third tasks? Very boring for the audience.

JLyon



From danjerri at madisoncounty.net  Sun Dec 28 14:25:51 2008
From: danjerri at madisoncounty.net (Jerri&Dan Chase)
Date: Sun, 28 Dec 2008 08:25:51 -0600
Subject: BubbleHead Charm (was Beedle the Bard SPOILERS\Animagi comentary)
In-Reply-To: <1230466088.18825.4282.m46@yahoogroups.com>
References: <1230466088.18825.4282.m46@yahoogroups.com>
Message-ID: <F3B574E85F2D40B9B0DE50EBD1E7C61C@JerriPC>

No: HPFGUIDX 185192


> What I found so annoying, along with about a hundred other things in
> the series, was that Herms and Harry could find no record of the
> bubblehead charm in all their searching but a year later everyone in
> school knew it.
> JLyon

This is one point that I didn't have trouble accepting.  Once everyone knew 
the charm existed, then they could all learn how to do it.  Cedric would 
almost certainly have shown the Hufflepuffs in their common room after the 
2nd task.  And, if one knew the name of the charm one wants to learn and is 
not forbidden by the "rules" of the TWT from asking for help from teachers, 
Flitwick would be delighted to help, and one could also ask the librarian 
for help finding a specific named charm.  In fact, it could even have been 
in one or more of the books HRH had looked through, but they were so focused 
on "water" that if the charm was not described with the word "water" in a 
prominent enough part of the description, they easily could have missed it.

Of course, I do think that Gilly Weed was a much better method, helping 
Harry keep warm, and giving him flipper like hands and feet to make swimming 
easier.

But, the Bubble Head Charm issue doesn't bother me like the sudden mention 
of "the trace" or a number of other inconsistencies.

Jerri 




From HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com  Sun Dec 28 17:57:16 2008
From: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com (HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com)
Date: 28 Dec 2008 17:57:16 -0000
Subject: Weekly Chat, 12/28/2008, 1:00 pm 
Message-ID: <1230487036.12.63871.m47@yahoogroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 185193

Reminder from: HPforGrownups Yahoo! Group
 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/cal

Weekly Chat
Sunday December 28, 2008
1:00 pm - 1:00 pm
(This event repeats every week.)
Location: http://www.chatzy.com/792755223574

Notes:
Just a reminder, Sunday chat starts in about one hour.

To get to the HPfGU room follow this link:
http://www.chatzy.com/792755223574

Create a user name for yourself, whatever you want
to be called.

Enter the password: hpfguchat

Click "Join Chat" on the lower right. 

Chat start times:
11 am Pacific US
12 noon Mountain US
1 pm Central US
2 pm Eastern US
7 pm UK


All Rights Reserved
 Copyright  2008 
 Yahoo! Inc.
 http://www.yahoo.com

Privacy Policy:
 http://privacy.yahoo.com/privacy/us

Terms of Service:
 http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://archive.hpfgu.org/pipermail/hpforgrownups/attachments/20081228/41fb5514/attachment.html>

From foxmoth at qnet.com  Mon Dec 29 13:27:06 2008
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2008 13:27:06 -0000
Subject: BubbleHead Charm (was Beedle the Bard SPOILERS\Animagi comentary)
In-Reply-To: <F3B574E85F2D40B9B0DE50EBD1E7C61C@JerriPC>
Message-ID: <gjaj7a+5re2@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 185194

Jerri:
  In fact, it could even have been 
> in one or more of the books HRH had looked through, but they were so
focused  on "water" that if the charm was not described with the word
"water" in a prominent enough part of the description, they easily
could have missed it.

Pippin:
Nothing in the rules prevents you from checking out or hiding with 
charms any books that might be useful to your opponents. I always
assumed that the other contestants, who had a head start on Harry, had
done so. Besides that, while Hermione has a broad range of interests
and is excellent at retaining what she reads, she has one weakness as
a researcher -- she's not creative. It never occurred to her to look
through Ron's chocolate frog cards for mention of Nicholas Flammell,
for example.  

Inconsistencies are inevitable in a work of this kind -- but the trace
isn't one of them. We've known since CoS that the Ministry had some
way of detecting magic that's done around underage wizards and that
they couldn't seem to tell who was actually doing it. We just didn't
know what it was called. 

Pippin





From willsonkmom at msn.com  Tue Dec 30 14:12:05 2008
From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat)
Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2008 14:12:05 -0000
Subject: Beedle the Bard SPOILERS\Animagi commentary
In-Reply-To: <9A56E346-379C-4C75-8B2B-797926F2910F@aim.com>
Message-ID: <gjda7l+10gs9@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 185195

 JLyon  wrote:
snip
> What I found so annoying, along with about a hundred other things in  
> the series, was that Herms and Harry could find no record of the  
> bubblehead charm in all their searching but a year later everyone in  
> school knew it.

Potioncat:
The first part has been addressed by others--how they may have missed 
this charm. 

That everyone seems to know it a year later is consistent with how 
spells are learned. Severus's invented spells seemed to be picked up 
fairly quickly by the student body. The interesting spells are picked 
up more rapidly than boring ones. Who cares if they can turn animals 
into teapots? Who would want to drink that tea, anyway?

JLyon
> Also, has anyone figured out how the spectators whiled away their  
> time during the second and third tasks? Very boring for the audience.


Potioncat:
I don't know---it's sort of like waiting at the finish line for a race 
that you can't see. Or like watching golf any where.

I don't think I would have bothered to attend the event either.





From k12listmomma at comcast.net  Tue Dec 30 16:02:19 2008
From: k12listmomma at comcast.net (k12listmomma)
Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2008 09:02:19 -0700
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Beedle the Bard SPOILERS\Animagi commentary
References: <gjda7l+10gs9@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <27D8313441D84409AAFCAE434286675E@homemain>

No: HPFGUIDX 185196

> JLyon
>> Also, has anyone figured out how the spectators whiled away their
>> time during the second and third tasks? Very boring for the audience.
>
> Potioncat:
> I don't know---it's sort of like waiting at the finish line for a race
> that you can't see. Or like watching golf any where.
>
> I don't think I would have bothered to attend the event either.


Shelley:
I got the idea that the TriWizard contest was similar to the Quidditch World 
Cup- people went about their jobs on a daily basis- and then took time off 
right before the "big event" to actually attend the event. I didn't think 
Hogwarts would host all of the spectators for the entire school year, rather 
at punctuated intervals, such as most guests arriving only a day or so 
before each of the stages. The book clearly shows the judges going about 
their daily duties, coming and going at Hogwarts several times to attend to 
specific tasks, such as the photos and wand weighing.




From willsonkmom at msn.com  Tue Dec 30 17:01:33 2008
From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat)
Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2008 17:01:33 -0000
Subject: Beedle the Bard SPOILERS\Animagi commentary
In-Reply-To: <27D8313441D84409AAFCAE434286675E@homemain>
Message-ID: <gjdk5d+g53m@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 185197

Shelley:
> I got the idea that the TriWizard contest was similar to the 
Quidditch World 
> Cup- people went about their jobs on a daily basis- and then took 
time off 
> right before the "big event" to actually attend the event. 

Potioncat:
In the second event, the contestants were under water and out of sight. 
In the third event, the contestants were in the maze and out of sight. 
None of the spectators or judges had any idea what was going on until 
the young wizards came out of the water/maze.

The question is what were the specators doing all that time? Maybe it 
was just a big party waiting to see the results. But they had nothing 
to watch during the contest.




From zanooda2 at yahoo.com  Tue Dec 30 17:53:47 2008
From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2)
Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2008 17:53:47 -0000
Subject: Beedle the Bard SPOILERS\Animagi commentary
In-Reply-To: <gjdk5d+g53m@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gjdn7b+3acd@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 185198

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "potioncat" <willsonkmom at ...> wrote:

> The question is what were the spectators doing all that time? 


I really hope they were entertained somehow :-). Otherwise it would be
boring, of course. It was only one hour of waiting at the second task,
but the maze took much longer, I suppose. It's a shame they don't have
any magical cameras, so that the spectators could watch what was going
on in the maze or in the lake :-).


zanooda 




From k12listmomma at comcast.net  Wed Dec 31 05:31:27 2008
From: k12listmomma at comcast.net (k12listmomma)
Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2008 22:31:27 -0700
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Beedle the Bard SPOILERS\Animagi commentary
References: <gjdk5d+g53m@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <E7E7797B69034967956F32462E1D0BCE@homemain>

No: HPFGUIDX 185199

> Potioncat:
> In the second event, the contestants were under water and out of sight.
> In the third event, the contestants were in the maze and out of sight.
> None of the spectators or judges had any idea what was going on until
> the young wizards came out of the water/maze.
>
> The question is what were the specators doing all that time? Maybe it
> was just a big party waiting to see the results. But they had nothing
> to watch during the contest.

The water task was what- one hour? And you knew that contestants could 
arrive before that hour was up. Not really much time to wait, with everyone 
talking about who would come up first, taking up bets with the Weasley twins 
(laying down their coin, or um, galleons), and predicting what horrors could 
lie below those murky waters. People had seen Victor diving in the lake to 
practice, and I bet someone knew what the egg had told the contestants. 
Surely someone noticed the missing "friends" that were down below to be 
rescued. I bet that task went fast.

And the maze- you saw sparks rise up in the air from Fleur, bushes move, 
flames lighting up spots in the maze, and such, and again, I bet the 
audience would be taking bets and predicting what was inside the maze. 
Someone had to know something about a Blast-Ended Screwt, or heard rumors of 
another monster secured for the task. I don't think it would be very boring 
at all. I bet the audience was such a sea of excitement that hardly anyone 
felt any boredom.

Shelley 




From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com  Wed Dec 31 15:04:09 2008
From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike)
Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2008 15:04:09 -0000
Subject: St. Mungo's Message Preempted
Message-ID: <gjg1l9+ancs@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 185200

Kingsley Shacklebolt, Minister of Magic
via The Daily Prophet and Owl Express:

A kind hello to all my fellow witches and wizards. Sorry to say that 
St. Mungo's has had a shake-up in staff and there doesn't seem to be 
anyone available to do this year's annual message. <actually, they 
were getting bored with it and couldn't rope anyone into doing it 
this year>

How-so-ever, we have a special treat for you this year. We at the 
Ministry have asked for someone from the Department for the 
Regulation and Control of Magical Creatures to give a short update 
from their point of view. <and cuz Mike got Fantastic Beasts & Where 
To Find Them for Christmas>

I would like to present Miss Tara Diddle. Take it away, Miss Diddle.

Tara: Huh, what,... take what away? I didn't bring any beasties with 
me today. You told me all I had to do was speak.

KS: No, no, that's just a phrase. I mean for you to go ahead, start 
your talk.

Tara: Oh, sorry, I don't get out much amongst people. I find 
creatures much more fascinating.

Ahem,... I would like to start by dispelling a few rumors and 
correcting some misinformation that my boss, Dagmarr Gonnit, has 
brought to my attention. Dag Gonnit says wizards are always getting 
these things wrong.

Acromantulas. Well, there's really not too much to tell you about 
these creatures that most of you don't already know. I suppose 
everyone finds them adorable, like I do, and they make great pets 
until they get too big. Which, I suppose, is why the Ministry has 
regulations on their importation. After all, what would we do with 
thousands of full grown Acromantulas?

KS: Umm, Miss Diddle, aren't Acromantulas highly venomous? Won't they 
kill and eat wizards?

Tara: Well,... yes, there is that. But aren't they the cutest things? 
Anyway, I was told to tell you all that Acromantulas do not 
necessarily align themselves with Dark Wizards to do their bidding. 
Acromantulas do not have political leanings, despite what you've been 
hearing about them fighting on the side of Lord Thingee at Hogwarts. 
It wasn't their fault the bad guys drove them out of their lairs and 
onto the Hogwarts grounds.

OK, on to Hippogriffs. Which is where I'd like to be, riding on a 
Hippogriff. This is really the most fun thing in the world. 
Hippogriffs are really quite tame and amenable creatures. The one I 
had when I was a kid loved it when I called her funny names.

KS: Ahh, I thought one shouldn't insult a Hippogriff? Am I missing 
something here? :looks around befuddled:

Tara: Wellll,... strictly speaking,... I suppose one shouldn't taunt 
a Hippogriff. But mine was most fond of a little ribbing now and 
then. 

KS: Wait, you had a Hippogriff as a pet when you were young?

Tara: Ummm,... well,... I guess it wasn't mine. And it wasn't really 
a pet. But it could've been!

Anyway, I have to tell you that Hippogriffs are not usually found in 
the company of Thestrals, and very rarely will fly or fight with 
them. There is a rumor that one of them lead a group of Thestrals 
into the Battle of Hogwarts, but I'm sure this isn't true.

KS: Ahh, yeah it is, I was there, I saw it. :looks around again for 
help: <where did the Ministry find this woman?>

Tara: OK, whatever.

Speaking of Thestrals, not that Thestrals can speak, mind you. You do 
know that if you own a Thestral you are supposed to perform a 
Disillusionment Charm on them every so often to hide them from 
Muggles, right?

KS: Why is that? Aren't Thestrals invisible? In fact, isn't only 
witches and wizards that can see Thestrals, and only those wizards 
that have seen death at that?

Tara: Well,... yes. Hey, it's not my idea. It's the stupid Ministry 
that put out that law.

KS: Miss Diddle, you are part of that *stupid* Ministry and it was 
your department that wrote that law. Besides, I'm sure it's meant for 
the winged horses that *are* visible, not the invisible ones.

Tara: Yeah, yeah, I suppose so. Sorry about the "stupid Ministry" 
crack, Minister.

Anyway, I was told to remind everyone that keeping a Thestral in meat 
can cost a fortune. For those that are thinking of acquiring one. 
They won't eat anything else, you know?

KS: I thought they were omnivores. I was sure I saw some grazing once 
before. Are you sure about that?

Tara: Well,... I suppose they will eat some grasses when they need to 
calm themselves down and to supplement their diet. But they like meat 
the best, and it can cost a bunch to keep them fed.

KS: Umm, won't Thestrals hunt for themselves. I was told that they 
are pretty much self sufficient. And being invisible to Muggles, 
there is no problem letting them out to hunt.

Tara: Well,... yes,... I suppose that makes sense.

KS: :shaking his head: Thank you Miss Diddle, this has been, umm,... 
very informative. I believe I will be thanking Dag Gonnit in person 
for sending you along.

Tara: Oh, no problem, Minister. I'll just be collecting my Niffler 
and heading back, if that's all right with you?

KS: Wait, I thought you said you didn't bring anything with you.

Tara: No, I said I didn't bring any beasties. Nifflers aren't a 
problem so I don't consider them beasties. I just locked him in your 
office while we were chatting.

KS: You WHAT??... Oh never mind.... Yes, please do collect your 
Niffler before you go. And tell Gonnit to expect me calling upon her 
very soon.


Well folks, I hope you got something out of this,... ahh,... talk. I 
know I did <yeah, like I'd better start reviewing my Departments' 
hiring practices>. Until next year, when we hope to have St. Mungos 
back. <They gotta be better than these people>

*******************************
HAPPY NEW YEAR EVERYONE!!

Mike, who still isn't sure what those Thestrals were eating in the 
Weasleys' garden




From arunlra at yahoo.co.in  Wed Dec 31 13:58:06 2008
From: arunlra at yahoo.co.in (arun)
Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2008 13:58:06 -0000
Subject: WISH YOU A HAPPY NEW YEAR 2009
Message-ID: <gjftpe+vodp@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 185201

Dear all,


I wish you Health...
So you may enjoy each day in comfort.

I wish you the Love of friends and family...
And Peace within your heart.

I wish you the Beauty of nature...
That you may enjoy the work of God.

I wish you Wisdom to choose priorities.. .
For those things that really matter in life.

I wish you Generousity so you may share...
All good things that come to you.

I wish you Happiness and Joy...
And Blessings for the New Year.

I wish you the best of everything.. .
That you so well deserve.

Wish you HAPPY NEW YEAR 2009



Thanks
Arun.R



From zanooda2 at yahoo.com  Wed Dec 31 18:57:05 2008
From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2)
Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2008 18:57:05 -0000
Subject: St. Mungo's Message Preempted
In-Reply-To: <gjg1l9+ancs@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gjgfa1+f4nn@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 185202

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Mike" <mcrudele78 at ...> wrote:

> HAPPY NEW YEAR EVERYONE!!
 
> Mike, who still isn't sure what those Thestrals were eating in the 
> Weasleys' garden


zanooda:

They could me omnivorous, couldn't they? Or they could be like cats -
cats are carnivorous (I think :-)), but they eat certain kinds of
grass, too. I must say though that I'm not really a cat person, so if
our cat-lovers here on the list catch me on some cat-related mistake -
I'm sorry :-). 

Also, I remember someone suggesting that the Thestral in the yard was
not grazing, but licking George's blood off the grass - maybe you like
this idea more :-). Only I can't recall now who suggested this :-).

Happy New Year to you too, Mike, and to everyone!